The Supreme Courtroom refused to entertain a public curiosity litigation difficult the 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 faculties, in addition to curbs on pictures, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.
The petition filed by Priya Mishra was heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, which refused to entertain it. “We aren’t inclined to entertain the writ petition filed underneath Article 32 of the Structure of India.”
The petition assumed significance within the wake of the “College Thik Karo” marketing campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Occasion to reveal the deficiencies in authorities faculty infrastructure. It particularly challenged 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 getting into the premises of presidency faculties. It additionally requires prior written permission for pictures, 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 mustn’t enter council faculties or take pictures 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 argued that the restrictions violate the elemental rights assured underneath Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Structure. It was contended that freedom of speech and expression encompasses reliable journalism and dissemination of data regarding public establishments, whereas recognising that the State has an obligation to guard kids’s privateness, dignity and security.
The petitioner contended that there’s a distinction between recording identifiable kids and documenting the bodily situation of a authorities faculty. In line with the petition, restrictions supposed to guard kids mustn’t routinely forestall public-interest documentation of lecture rooms, buildings, bathrooms, drinking-water services, electrical energy, mid-day meals and different infrastructure.
The petitioner urged the Supreme Courtroom 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 exams of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.
Case Particulars: PRIYA MISHRA v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.|Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1095/2026
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narander Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR
