Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court on June 15 refused to grant anticipatory bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl, who is accused of obstructing a road construction project in Punjab’s Gurdaspur district.
While hearing the matter, a bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi made pointed observations regarding what it described as the growing misuse of RTI activism.
Justice Mehta remarked that “RTI activists have become a new business” and questioned the role being played by individuals who seek to monitor government projects without any official authority.
“The Central Government has issued funds and it will take care of the construction of the road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist. Yellow journalism,” Justice Mehta orally observed before dismissing the plea.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi echoed similar concerns and questioned why the petitioner had taken it upon himself to oversee the construction work.
“Who are you to monitor the construction of these roads? Are you some superior authority? What authority do you have? Who gave you these rights?” the judge asked during the hearing.
The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had earlier refused to grant anticipatory bail to him and another accused, Rajiv Kumar.
The High Court had observed that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) indicated specific and direct involvement of the accused in obstructing government work and therefore did not justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
After hearing the matter, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
According to the prosecution, the case arises from an incident linked to an ongoing road construction project in Gurdaspur district.
The FIR alleges that Behl and his associate obstructed the construction work being carried out under government supervision. They are accused of intimidating the complainant responsible for overseeing the project as well as labourers working at the site.
Investigators further alleged that the accused physically assaulted the complainant. According to the allegations, Behl inflicted blows on the complainant while the co-accused allegedly kicked him during the confrontation.
The FIR also includes allegations that caste-based derogatory remarks were made against labourers present at the site.
Police have registered the case under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to obstruction of public servants, criminal intimidation and other offences.
In addition, provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have also been invoked in view of the allegations concerning caste-based remarks.
The investigation into the matter is continuing.
What is RTI Activism?
RTI activism refers to the use of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek information from public authorities and government departments in the interest of transparency and accountability.
Over the years, RTI activists have played a significant role in exposing corruption, administrative irregularities and misuse of public funds. The law allows citizens to obtain information from government bodies and has often been used as a tool to promote good governance.
However, courts and government agencies have on several occasions expressed concerns over the alleged misuse of RTI provisions by certain individuals for personal motives, harassment of officials or publicity.
One of the most prominent figures associated with RTI activism in India is former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Before entering politics, Kejriwal was known for using RTI applications to expose alleged corruption and administrative irregularities.
His work in promoting transparency and citizen participation earned him the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2006.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations come weeks after another strong comment from the apex court regarding the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs).
On May 5, the Court remarked that many PILs have increasingly transformed into “Private Interest Litigation”, “Publicity Interest Litigation”, “Political Interest Litigation” and even “Money Interest Litigation”.
The observation was made while examining a petition linked to the long-running Sabarimala Temple entry dispute. The Court questioned the intentions behind certain PILs and cautioned against the abuse of judicial processes for publicity or personal agendas.
