The Supreme Court of India recently refused anticipatory bail to a prominent Right to Information (RTI) activist, Rakesh Kumar Behl, and his associate in a case concerning alleged obstruction of public work during road construction in Punjab. During the proceedings, the bench made strong observations, questioning the role of such activists and stating that "RTI activism has become a new business."
Court Questions Activist's Authority
Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi presided over the case, upholding a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had previously denied anticipatory bail to Behl. Justice Mehta remarked, "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." Justice Bishnoi concurred, asking, "Who are you to monitor the construction of all these roads? Are you some superior authority or what?"
The court's remarks came as it considered the plea from Behl, who, along with another accused, Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu, was implicated in a First Information Report (FIR) for allegedly obstructing ongoing road construction work in Batala, Gurdaspur district, Punjab. The FIR also accused them of intimidating the supervising complainant and labourers at the site, using derogatory remarks, and causing injuries to the complainant.
Allegations of Obstruction vs. Corruption Claims
Behl's counsel argued that the activist and his associate had been falsely implicated. They claimed the charges were a retaliatory measure because they had highlighted alleged corruption in the road construction project. However, the FIR details specific and direct involvement in obstructing government work and intimidating personnel.
The FIR against them was registered under Sections 304(2), 132, 221, 121(1), 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 3(5) and 121(2) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. Both the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its May 14 order, and now the Supreme Court have found the allegations sufficient to deny anticipatory bail, emphasizing the serious nature of obstructing public servants in their official duties.