RTI activism is ‘new business’: SC denies pre-arrest bail

RTI Activism Categorized as 'New Business' by Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail for Punjab RTI Activists

RTI activism is new business - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request for anticipatory bail filed by an individual identified as an RTI activist from Punjab and his associate. The court highlighted that the activists’ actions had escalated into a "new business" by hindering a road construction project, citing alleged corruption as the primary reason for their opposition.

“You prevent people from working and block public servants from carrying out their duties. Who are you to oversee this road progress? Are you an engineer, a superior authority, or an authorized representative of the public… you are merely a so-called RTI activist,” remarked a bench led by justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi.

The petitioners, represented by advocate Dinesh Mahajan, contended that the FIR was filed to shield contractors and officials implicated in past corruption cases exposed by Ramesh Kumar Behl. They emphasized that ₹57 crore had been allocated for the Batala road project, with contractors allegedly using substandard materials to misappropriate funds.

The court dismissed the activists’ claims as “yellow journalism,” asserting that the Central government had already taken charge of the construction process. “You are insignificant,” the bench remarked, while rejecting their argument that the FIR was politically motivated.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the High Court’s May 14 decision to deny anticipatory bail. The HC had cited the seriousness of the offenses, including the accused’s physical assault on laborers and their intimidation during the project’s execution. The state had also argued that the obstruction was deliberate and that the accused had seized government records from the site.

Legal Proceedings and Allegations

The case originated from a challenge to the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order, which denied bail based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The court emphasized that the accused’s active involvement in disrupting the work and making casteist remarks against laborers warranted custodial interrogation.

“Considering the severity of the accusations and the appellants’ direct participation, this Court finds no justification for granting anticipatory bail,” the High Court concluded.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s view of RTI activism as a tool that may be exploited for personal or political gain, rather than purely for transparency and accountability.