Supreme Court rejected anticipatory bail for RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl, calling RTI activism a new business.
Justices questioned Behl's authority to monitor Central government-funded road work in Batala, Gurdaspur.
FIR accuses Behl and aide of obstructing work, using derogatory remarks, and injuring the complainant.
SC Calls RTI Activism A 'Business', Denies Bail To Punjab Activist Over Road Blockade
Justices question authority of RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl for obstructing government road construction in Gurdaspur.
Summary
The Supreme Court on Monday criticised RTI activism as having turned into a new business while rejecting anticipatory bail for an activist and his aide accused of obstructing road construction work in Punjab.
A bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi turned down the plea of RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl and another accused, questioning their right to oversee the government project. According to PTI, the court observed that the Central government had released funds for the work and would manage its execution.
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?"
PTI reported that Behl had challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 14 denying him anticipatory bail. His counsel argued that the pair had been falsely implicated after they raised concerns about alleged corruption in the road project in Batala, Gurdaspur district.
Reported PTI, the FIR stated that Behl and Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu had obstructed the ongoing work, intimidated the complainant supervising the site and the labourers, used derogatory remarks against the labourers, 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 had earlier refused anticipatory bail, noting that the FIR allegations showed specific and direct involvement in obstructing government work.
(With inputs from PTI)
Published At: