'You are nobody': SC rebukes 'so-called RTI activist', refuses anticipatory bail

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court connected Monday delivered a crisp rebuke to an RTI (Right to Information Act) activistic portion refusing anticipatory bail to him and different accused successful a lawsuit linked to the alleged obstruction of roadworthy operation enactment successful Punjab.A seat of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi rejected the plea of RTI activistic Rakesh Kumar Behl and his aide, questioning their authorization to show government-funded infrastructure projects.During the hearing, Justice Mehta criticised what helium described arsenic the increasing misuse of RTI. “RTI activism has go a caller business. The Central authorities has issued funds, it volition instrumentality attraction of the operation of the road.

You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism. Dismissed,” helium said, arsenic quoted by quality bureau PTI.Justice Bishnoi observed, “Who are you to show the operation of each these roads? Are you immoderate superior authorization oregon what?”Behl had approached the apex tribunal aft the Punjab and Haryana precocious tribunal declined to assistance him anticipatory bail. His counsel argued that helium and the co-accused had been falsely implicated due to the fact that they had exposed alleged corruption successful the roadworthy operation project.

According to the FIR, Behl and different accused, Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu, allegedly obstructed ongoing roadworthy operation enactment successful Batala, successful Punjab’s Gurdaspur district. The ailment alleges that they interfered with the execution of the project, intimidated the supervising authoritative and labourers astatine the site, utilized derogatory remarks against a idiosyncratic and caused injuries to the complainant.An FIR was subsequently registered against them nether aggregate provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arsenic good arsenic Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.In its May 14 order, the Punjab and Haryana precocious tribunal had refused anticipatory bail, observing that the allegations successful the FIR disclosed “specific and nonstop involvement” of the accused successful obstructing authorities work. The Supreme Court upheld that presumption and dismissed the plea.