A Public Curiosity Litigation filed earlier than the Supreme Court docket has challenged restrictions imposed by schooling authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media customers and civil-society representatives into authorities colleges, in addition to curbs on images, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.
The petition assumes significance within the wake of the “College Thik Karo” marketing campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Occasion to show the deficiencies in authorities college infrastructure.
The petition filed by Priya Mishra, was talked about earlier than a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday for pressing itemizing. Advocate Narendra Mishra, for the petitioner, submitted that orders issued by State authorities may lead to FIRs being registered in opposition to individuals who {photograph} or document movies exhibiting deficiencies in authorities colleges, together with beneath the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
When counsel identified that the petition had already been filed and sought a date, the Chief Justice stated, “We’ll see.”
The petition particularly challenges an August 16, 2026 round issued by Rajasthan’s Director of Secondary Training, which requires outsiders to acquire prior permission from the principal earlier than coming into authorities college premises. It additionally requires prior written permission for images, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.
Relating to Uttar Pradesh, the petition refers to an August 19 order issued by the District Fundamental Training Officer, Ayodhya, directing that outsiders, YouTubers and individuals related to social media shouldn’t enter council colleges or take images or movies with out permission from the competent authority. The petition states that comparable instructions have been issued in a number of different districts, together with Azamgarh, Ballia, Basti, Balrampur, Shamli and Agra.
The petitioner argues that the restrictions violate the basic rights assured beneath Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Structure. It contends that freedom of speech and expression encompasses reputable journalism and dissemination of knowledge regarding public establishments, whereas recognising that the State has an obligation to guard youngsters’s privateness, dignity and security.
The petitioner contends that there’s a distinction between recording identifiable youngsters and documenting the bodily situation of a authorities college. In line with the petition, restrictions meant to guard youngsters shouldn’t routinely forestall public-interest documentation of lecture rooms, buildings, bogs, drinking-water amenities, electrical energy, mid-day meals and different infrastructure.
The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court docket to quash the impugned Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh orders to the extent that they impose blanket restrictions, and to direct that any regulation of public-interest documentation fulfill the checks of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.
