The Supreme Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to a so-called RTI activist from Punjab and his aide observing that RTI activism has now become a “new business” as it took serious exception to the accused’s conduct of obstructing a road construction project on grounds of alleged corruption.
<figure class="art
“You don’t allow people to work and obstruct public servants from performing their duties. Who are you to monitor all this road progress? Are you any engineer or superior authority or an authorised representative of the public…you are a so-called RTI activist,” a bench of justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi said as it decided a petition by one Ramesh Kumar Behl along with another person who claimed to be RTI activists and were slapped with offences under the BNS for obstructing the road construction work and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for making casteist slurs against the labourers involved with the construction work. “The RTI activism has become a new business,” the bench added.
The petitioners represented by advocate Dinesh Mahajan argued that the present FIR was registered to protect the contractors and officials involved in corruption which had been exposed in the past through the complaints by Behl. He further stated that for the present road project at Batala, the Centre has already allocated a sum of ₹57 crore that is being misappropriated by the contractors using sub-standard material.
The bench dismissed the activism of the accused as “yellow journalism” and dismissed their plea by remarking, “The Central government has issued funds. The Central government will take care of the construction. You are nobody.”
The petitioners had approached the top court challenging the May 14 order of the Punjab & Haryana high court denying them anticipatory bail. It noted the serious nature of the offences involved as the duo obstructed the ongoing road construction work and criminally intimidated the labourers present at the site. One of them inflicted blows with a knife and another kicked the labourer while making allegedly derogatory remarks.
The state had opposed the bail in the high court claiming that the injuries are grievous in nature and the accused had even snatched the government record from the officer present at the site.
The HC held, “Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the active role attributed to the appellants and the requirement of custodial interrogation do not persuade this Court to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants. No ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.”
