The Supreme Court on Monday, 15 June refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Punjab-based RTI activist accused of obstructing a government road construction project in Batala, assaulting a public servant, and using caste-based derogatory remarks against labourers. While dismissing the plea, the court orally observed that 'RTI activism has become a new business' — a sharp rebuke that signals judicial impatience with what it characterised as unsanctioned oversight of public infrastructure.

What the Court Said

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Ramesh Kumar Behl and Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu, who had challenged a Punjab and Haryana High Court order denying them pre-arrest protection. During the hearing, the Justice Mehta-led bench questioned the legal basis on which the petitioners claimed authority to monitor the road project.

'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,' the bench remarked orally. It further asked: 'Who are you to monitor the construction, all these road progress or all? Are you some superior authority?'

The FIR and Allegations

An FIR was registered on 20 February at the City Police Station, Batala, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, the accused obstructed an ongoing government road project, criminally intimidated the complainant and labourers at the site, and allegedly used caste-based slurs against workers belonging to Scheduled Castes.

The FIR further alleged that Behl struck the complainant with a sharp-edged weapon while the co-accused repeatedly kicked him, resulting in seven injuries, one of which was declared grievous. Government records were also allegedly snatched from the complainant during the altercation.

The Accused's Defence

The appellants contended before the court that they had been falsely implicated after exposing alleged corruption in the road project — specifically, the use of substandard construction material. They argued that the criminal case was registered under political pressure to protect contractors and officials allegedly involved in irregularities. The Supreme Court, however, declined to accept this as grounds for anticipatory bail at this stage.

High Court's Earlier Ruling

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its order dated 14 May, had held that the allegations disclosed 'specific and direct involvement' of the accused in obstructing government work, assaulting the complainant, and using caste-based derogatory remarks. A single-judge bench of Justice Rupinderjit Chahal had observed that the complainant suffered seven injuries including one grievous, and concluded that the nature and gravity of the charges — coupled with the need for custodial interrogation — did not warrant pre-arrest protection.

The High Court also noted that whether the accused had knowledge of the labourers' caste identity was a matter for trial, and could not be conclusively examined at the anticipatory bail stage. The Supreme Court, concurring with this reasoning, let the High Court's order stand.

Broader Implications

This comes amid growing judicial scrutiny of individuals who invoke RTI provisions or self-styled activist roles to intervene in public works without statutory authority. Notably, the Supreme Court's oral remarks — though not forming part of the binding order — are likely to be cited in similar cases where the line between legitimate whistleblowing and obstruction is contested. The accused will now face the prospect of arrest, with the trial court remaining the next forum for relief.