SC refuses anticipatory bail, criticises ‘RTI activism as business’ in road work obstruction case
The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing road construction work in Punjab. The bench questioned his authority to monitor public works, observing that RTI activism has become a “business” and dismissed the plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that RTI activism has become a new business, while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to an activist and other accused of obstructing a public servant in road construction work.
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi denied bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl and his aide, and questioned their authority to monitor the road construction work.
Justice Mehta observed, “RTI activism has become a new business. The Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of the road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism. Dismissed.”
Concurring with the views of Justice Mehta, Justice Bishnoi said, “Who are you to monitor the construction of all these roads? Are you some superior authority or what?” Behl has challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order denying him anticipatory bail.
His counsel contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case as they had highlighted the corruption involved in the road construction work.
According to the FIR, Behl along with another accused Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu allegedly obstructed the ongoing road construction work in Batala of Gurdaspur district of Punjab and also intimated the complainant under whose supervision the work was being executed and the labourers present at the site.
They also used derogatory remarks against the labourer and inflicted injuries on the complainant. An FIR was registered against them under Sections 304(2), 132, 221, 121(1), 351(2), 351(3), of BNS, 2023 (Sections 3(5), 121(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its order on May 14 said that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose specific and direct involvement in obstructing the government work and refused to grant them anticipatory bail.
