Supreme Court Criticizes RTI Activism and Denies Anticipatory Bail
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India expressed its concerns over the evolving nature of Right to Information (RTI) activism, suggesting that it has turned into a ‘business’ that hinders public servants from executing their responsibilities effectively. This observation came from a Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, as they dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail by two individuals accused of obstructing a road project in Punjab.
The case involved allegations that the accused impeded the progress of a government road construction project, assaulted laborers, and used derogatory caste-based language. The Bench was unequivocal in its stance, questioning the authority of the accused to oversee or interfere with the project. “You obstructed public servants from performing their duties. RTI activists. It’s become a new business. You don’t allow people to work…Who are you to monitor all these road progress and all? Are you an engineer there or superior authority? Are you an authorised representative of public? So-called RTI activist,” remarked the Court.
Details of the Case
The incident leading to the Supreme Court’s involvement originated from a first information report (FIR) filed at the Batala City police station on February 20. According to the FIR, the accused were involved in halting the ongoing road construction, intimidating the complainant and laborers, and making caste-based derogatory remarks. One of the accused allegedly attacked the complainant with a ‘datar’ (a type of knife), while the other was said to have physically assaulted him, resulting in multiple injuries. Furthermore, it was claimed that government documents were seized during the altercation.
The accused defended themselves by claiming that their actions were a response to alleged corruption in the road project, which had received ₹57 crore in funding from the Central government. They argued that the FIR was a retaliatory measure to protect corrupt contractors and officials.
Judicial Proceedings
Prior to this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had denied the accused anticipatory bail in May. The High Court underscored the seriousness of the allegations, which included obstruction of government work and the use of caste-based slurs, supported by medical evidence indicating seven injuries to the complainant, one of which was grievous. The Court emphasized that claims of corruption could not warrant anticipatory bail, especially when the FIR’s allegations were substantiated by evidence. It also highlighted the necessity for custodial interrogation.
More Read
Subsequent to the High Court’s decision, the accused sought relief from the Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the lower court’s ruling. The Supreme Court reinforced that issues concerning the project’s integrity were to be handled by the appropriate authorities, stating, “Central government has issued funds. Central government will take care of the construction. You are nobody,” thereby dismissing the plea for bail.
