16/06/2026
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Behl v. State of Punjab Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi Hearing Date: June 15, 2026
Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To RTI Activist, Says โRTI Activism Has Become A New Businessโ Supreme Court declines anticipatory bail to RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl in a road construction obstruction case, making strong observations on RTI activism
The Supreme Court refused anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a road construction project and remarked that โRTI activism has become a new business" The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a public servant and interfering with a government road construction project in Punjab, while making strong oral remarks on the growing trend of self-styled RTI activism. The Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl, who had challenged an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denying him pre-arrest protection. Also Read - RTE Act Not Implemented In Punjab for 15 Years? Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL During the hearing, the Bench questioned Behl's role in monitoring the ex*****on of a public infrastructure project and expressed disapproval of individuals taking it upon themselves to oversee government works without any statutory authority. Justice Mehta remarked: "RTI activists have become a new business. Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism. Dismissed." Justice Bishnoi also questioned the basis on which the petitioner was allegedly supervising the road construction work. "Who are you to monitor the construction all these road progress or all? Are you some superior authority?" the judge asked. The case stems from an FIR alleging that Behl, along with another accused, obstructed an ongoing road construction project being executed under government supervision. According to the prosecution, the accused persons interfered with the work, intimidated the complainant who was supervising the project, and prevented labourers from carrying out construction activities. The FIR further alleges that Behl physically assaulted the complainant, while the co-accused kicked him during the altercation. The prosecution has also accused the duo of making caste-based derogatory remarks against labourers present at the site. Based on these allegations, the police registered a case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including offences relating to obstructing public servants, criminal intimidation, assault and unlawful restraint. Charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have also been invoked. Seeking anticipatory bail, Behl approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that he had been falsely implicated. However, the High Court declined relief, observing that the allegations in the FIR disclosed his direct and specific involvement in obstructing government work. The High Court had noted that the accusations were serious in nature and prima facie revealed interference with a public project being undertaken through government funds. Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal, Behl moved the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail. However, the apex court was not inclined to interfere. During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned the petitioner's authority to monitor or intervene in the construction process and indicated that public projects funded by the government are subject to oversight by competent authorities rather than private individuals.
