Supreme Court denies anticipatory bail to Punjab activist, calls RTI activism ‘new business’

3 min readNew DelhiJun 15, 2026 08:17 PM IST

Denying the anticipatory bail of a RTI activist, the Supreme Court said that the RTI activism has become a business. (Image generated using AI)

Denying anticipatory bail to an RTI activist and his aide, accused of obstructing a public servant in the matter of construction of a road, the Supreme Court on Monday said RTI activism had become a new business.

“RTI activism has become a new business. The Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of the road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism,” a bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi said while dismissing the plea by RTI activist Ramesh Kumar Behl and co-accused Rajiv Kumar.

The court asked, “Who are you to monitor the construction all these road progress or all? Are you some superior authority?”

Behl had approached the top court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his pre-arrest bail plea on May 15. Earlier, a Special Judge in Gurdaspur had rejected his anticipatory bail plea on April 2.

As per the FIR, the duo “obstructed the ongoing road construction work and also criminally intimidated the complainant and labourers present at the site and also used caste based derogatory remarks against the labourers.” It was “further alleged that appellant No.1 (Behl) also inflicted datar (a kind of dagger) blows on the complainant and appellant No.2 (Kumar) repeatedly kicked him thus, causing several injuries to him.”

Before the HC, the counsel for the accused contended that they were “falsely implicated” as they “had earlier exposed large-scale corruption being done in the road construction work being carried out in Batala” and that Behl “had already submitted a complaint in this regard before the authorities highlighting the use of inferior material.”

He added that Behl “had moved another complaint and as a consequence the complainant party had attempted to attack” him “and even threatened him on phone.”

Story continues below this ad

He further told the HC “that the present FIR has been registered under political pressure and to protect the contractors and officials involved in corruption which was being exposed through the complaints by” Behl.

“Regarding the allegations of using caste based words against the labourers”, the counsel submitted that “nothing has been mentioned in the FIR to show that the appellants had knowledge of the caste of the labourers. Hence, the provisions of SC/ST Act are not made out against the appellants” and that it was the complainant and his accomplices who beat up Behl and Kumar.

Denying them relief, the HC had said, “The allegations levelled in the FIR disclose specific and direct involvement of the appellants in obstructing the government work, assaulting the complainant and labourers present at the spot and using caste based derogatory remarks against the labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes.”

Regarding “the argument that the appellants had no knowledge of the caste of the labourers”, the HC had said it “is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively examined at this preliminary stage particularly in view of the grievous injuries suffered by the complainant at the hands of the appellants”.