The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Punjab-based RTI activist accused of obstructing a government road construction project, assaulting a public servant. and using caste-based derogatory remarks against labourers, orally observing that "RTI activism has become a new business".
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Ramesh Kumar Behl and Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu, challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying him pre-arrest protection in a criminal case arising out of an alleged altercation at a road construction site in Batala.
During the hearing, the apex court expressed strong disapproval of individuals taking it upon themselves to supervise public infrastructure projects without any statutory authority.
Questioning the petitioners’ role in monitoring the road construction work, the Justice Mehta-led Bench remarked: "RTI activists have become a new business. The Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of roads. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism."
It also queried the basis on which the petitioner was allegedly overseeing the project, asking: "Who are you to monitor the construction, all these road progress or all? Are you some superior authority?"
The apex court thereafter dismissed the anticipatory bail plea.
As per the case record, an FIR was registered on February 20 at the City Police Station in Batala under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons obstructed an ongoing government road construction project, criminally intimidated the complainant and labourers present at the site, and allegedly used caste-based derogatory remarks against workers belonging to the Scheduled Castes.
The FIR further alleged that Behl inflicted blows on the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon, while the co-accused repeatedly kicked him, resulting in multiple injuries.
The prosecution also alleged that government records were snatched from the complainant during the incident.
Opposing the bail plea before the High Court, the Punjab government had argued that the accused actively interfered with the execution of public work, assaulted the complainant and labourers, and caused seven injuries, one of which was declared grievous in nature.
It further contended that custodial interrogation was necessary in view of the seriousness of the allegations.
On the other hand, the appellants had claimed that they were falsely implicated after exposing alleged corruption in the road construction project and raising complaints regarding the use of substandard material. They contended that the criminal case had been registered under political pressure to shield contractors and officials allegedly involved in irregularities.
Rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the allegations disclosed "specific and direct involvement" of the accused in obstructing government work, assaulting the complainant and labourers, and using caste-based derogatory remarks.
In its order passed on May 14, the High Court recorded that the complainant had suffered seven injuries, including one grievous injury, and observed that the appellants’ claim of having exposed corruption could not, at the preliminary stage, justify the grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. It further held that the question whether the accused had knowledge of the caste of the labourers was a matter for trial and could not be conclusively examined at the stage of considering anticipatory bail.
Observing that courts must balance individual liberty with societal interests while dealing with anticipatory bail pleas, a single-judge Bench of Justice Rupinderjit Chahal had concluded that the nature and gravity of the allegations, coupled with the requirement of custodial interrogation, did not warrant the grant of pre-arrest protection.
--IANS