RTI activism has become a business, you don’t allow people to work: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that “RTI activism” had become a “business” that was preventing public servants from performing their duties.

A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi made the remarks while refusing anticipatory bail to two men who claimed that they were exposing corruption in a road project. They were accused of obstructing construction, assaulting labourers and using caste-based slurs.

“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,” the Court remarked.

When counsel for the accused argued that they were concerned about alleged irregularities in the project for which ₹57 crore had been released by the Central government, the Court said that the matter was for the authorities to address.

“Central government has issued funds. Central government will take care of the construction. You are nobody,” the Bench said before dismissing the plea.

The case stems from a first information report (FIR) registered at Batala City police station on February 20 this year. According to the prosecution, the accused obstructed an ongoing road construction project, criminally intimidated the complainant and labourers present at the site and used caste-based derogatory remarks against workers belonging to Scheduled Castes.

The FIR further alleged that one of the accused attacked the complainant with a datar (knife) while the other repeatedly kicked him, causing multiple injuries. Police also alleged that government records were snatched during the incident.

The accused, however, maintained that they had been falsely implicated after raising complaints about alleged corruption in the road construction work. They claimed that substandard material was being used in the project and that the FIR was lodged to protect contractors and officials involved in the construction.

Their plea for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in May. The High Court noted that the allegations disclosed specific involvement of the accused in obstructing government work, assaulting the complainant and labourers and using caste-based slurs. It also took note of medical evidence showing that the complainant suffered seven injuries, one of which was found to be grievous.

The High Court held that the accused’s allegations of corruption could not justify the grant of anticipatory bail at that stage, particularly when the allegations in the FIR were supported by medical evidence. It also observed that custodial interrogation was required in the case.

Challenging this order, the accused had approached the Supreme Court.