The Supreme Court on Monday refused anticipatory bail to a so-called RTI activist from Punjab and his aide, stating that RTI activism has now become a “new business” as it has taken serious exception to the conduct of the accused of obstructing a road construction project on the grounds of alleged corruption.
“You are not allowing people to work and obstructing public servants from discharging their duties. Who are you to monitor all this progress on the road? Are you any engineer, higher authority or authorized representative of the public… You are a so-called RTI activist,” a bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi said when it decided a petition filed by Ramesh Kumar Behl along with another person who claimed to be RTI activists and were ticketed under the BNS for obstructing the road. Construction work and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to level caste slurs against workers involved in construction work. “RTI activity has become a new business,” the bench added.
The petitioners represented by advocate Dinesh Mahajan argued that the current FIR was registered to protect contractors and officials involved in corruption that had been exposed in the past through Behl’s complaints. He further stated that for the current road project in Batala, the Center has already allocated an amount of Rs $Rs 57 crore was misappropriated by contractors using substandard materials.
The court dismissed the defendants’ activity as “yellow journalism” and rejected their petition, saying: “The central government has issued funds. The central government will handle the construction process. You are no one.”
The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court challenging the May 14 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court not granting them anticipatory bail. She pointed out the serious nature of the crimes committed, as the duo obstructed the ongoing road construction work and criminally intimidated the workers present at the site. One of them hit the worker with a knife and another kicked the worker while he allegedly made insulting remarks.
The state had opposed bail in the High Court, claiming that the injuries were serious in nature and that the accused had extracted the government record from the officer on the scene.
The Supreme Court held that “considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the active role attributed to the appellants and the requirements of custodial interrogation do not persuade this Court to exercise discretion in favor of the appellants. No basis has been adduced for grant of anticipatory bail.”
