1 hour ago
1
The Supreme Court connected Monday (June 1, 2026) said that Right to Information (RTI) activism has go a caller business, portion refusing to assistance anticipatory bail to an activistic and different accused of obstructing a nationalist servant successful roadworthy operation work.
A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi denied bail to RTI activistic Rakesh Kumar Behl and his aide, and questioned their authorization to show the roadworthy operation work.
Justice Mehta observed, "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."
Concurring with the views of Justice Mehta, Justice Bishnoi said, "Who are you to show the operation of each these roads? Are you immoderate superior authorization oregon what?" Behl has challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court's bid denying him anticipatory bail.
His counsel contended that they had been falsely implicated successful the lawsuit arsenic they had highlighted the corruption progressive successful the roadworthy operation work.
According to the archetypal accusation study (FIR), Behl on with different accused Rajiv Kumar alias Mintu allegedly obstructed the ongoing roadworthy operation enactment successful Batala of Gurdaspur territory of Punjab and besides intimated the complainant nether whose supervision the enactment was being executed and the labourers contiguous astatine the site.
They besides utilized derogatory remarks against the labourer and inflicted injuries connected the complainant. An FIR was registered against them nether Sections 304(2), 132, 221, 121(1), 351(2), 351(3), of BNS, 2023 (Sections 3(5), 121(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court successful its bid connected May 14 said that the allegations levelled successful the FIR disclose circumstantial and nonstop engagement successful obstructing the authorities enactment and refused to assistance them anticipatory bail.
