RTI Activism a New Business, Says Supreme Court While Denying Bail

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh Kumar Behl v. State of Punjab (2026), denied anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing ongoing government road construction work, assaulting a supervising official, and making caste-based derogatory remarks against labourers at the site. 

• The Court affirmed the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order refusing anticipatory bail, making oral remarks questioning the conduct of so-called RTI activists who obstruct legitimate government work.

What was the Background of Ramesh Kumar Behl v. State of Punjab (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Behl, an RTI activist, along with another accused, allegedly obstructed ongoing road construction work being executed under the supervision of the complainant, a public servant. 
• The petitioner and his co-accused are alleged to have intimidated the complainant and the labourers present at the site. It is further alleged that the petitioner inflicted blows on the complainant while the other accused kicked him. Additionally, caste-based derogatory remarks were made against the labourers at the worksite. 
• An FIR was subsequently registered against the petitioner under Sections 304(2), 132, 221, 121(1), 351(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, along with Sections 3(5) and 121(2) of the BNS, 2023, and Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied anticipatory bail, holding that the allegations in the FIR disclose specific and direct involvement in obstructing government work. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court assailing this order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the conduct of RTI activists: The Court made pointed oral remarks questioning the role of so-called RTI activists who position themselves as monitors of government work without any legal authority to do so. Justice Mehta remarked that RTI activism has become a new business, and the petitioner had no standing to interfere with legitimate government-funded construction activity. 
• On the authority to monitor government work: Justice Bishnoi questioned on what basis the petitioner was monitoring the progress of road construction, observing that the petitioner was not a superior or supervisory authority entitled to intervene in the execution of the project. 
• On the High Court's order: The Court found no ground to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order, which had concluded that the FIR disclosed specific and direct involvement of the accused in obstructing the discharge of official duties by a public servant. The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed.

What is the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005? 

About: 

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information. 
• Its basic objective is to empower citizens, promote transparency and accountability in government functioning, contain corruption, and make democracy work for the people in a real sense.

Key Provisions: 

• Right to Information (Section 3): All citizens have the right to information, subject to the provisions of the Act. 
• Obligations of Public Authorities (Section 4): Public authorities must maintain and catalogue records, computerise them within a reasonable time, publish organisational details within 120 days of enactment, and provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. 
• Public Information Officers (Section 5): Every public authority must designate Central or State Public Information Officers; Assistant PIOs to be designated at sub-divisional or sub-district levels. 
• Request for Information (Section 6): Requests may be made in writing, electronically, or orally; applicants are not required to give reasons for seeking information. 
• Disposal of Request (Section 7): Information must be provided within 30 days; if it concerns life or liberty, within 48 hours; fees may be charged. 
• Exemptions (Section 8): Disclosure may be refused on grounds including national security, commercial confidence, and personal privacy; however, public interest disclosure remains possible despite exemptions. 
• Rejection and Severability (Sections 9–10): Requests infringing copyright may be rejected; where exempt information is severable, access to the remaining part of the record must be provided. 
• Third Party Information (Section 11): A prescribed procedure governs handling of information relating to or supplied by third parties. 
• Information Commissions (Sections 12–17): Central and State Information Commissions are constituted; provisions govern appointment, terms, salaries, and removal of Information Commissioners. 
• Powers of Commissions (Section 18): Commissions may inquire into complaints and exercise powers of a civil court. 
• Appeals (Section 19): First and second appeal mechanisms are provided; decisions of Information Commissions are binding. 
• Penalties (Section 20): Penalties may be imposed on PIOs for unreasonable refusal, delay, or obstruction; persistent violations may attract disciplinary action.