The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging restrictions imposed by education authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and civil-society representatives into government schools, as well as curbs on photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming. The petition was filed by Priya Mishra and heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.
The bench stated unequivocally that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The court did not elaborate further on the reasoning behind its decision to decline entertainment of the plea.
The petition gained significance in the context of the 'School Thik Karo' campaign undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Party to highlight deficiencies in government school infrastructure. It specifically challenged an August 16, 2026 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, which mandates that outsiders obtain prior permission from the principal before entering the premises of government schools. The circular also requires prior written permission for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.
Regarding Uttar Pradesh, the petition referred to an August 19 order issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya, directing that outsiders, YouTubers and persons associated with social media should not enter council schools or take photographs or videos without permission from the competent authority. The petition noted that similar directions had been issued in several other districts, including Azamgarh, Ballia, Basti, Balrampur, Shamli and Agra.
The petitioner argued that the restrictions violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Constitution. It contended that freedom of speech and expression encompasses legitimate journalism and the dissemination of information concerning public institutions, while acknowledging the State's duty to protect children's privacy, dignity and safety.
The petitioner drew a distinction between recording identifiable children and documenting the physical condition of a government school. It asserted that restrictions intended to protect children should not automatically prevent public-interest documentation of classrooms, buildings, toilets, drinking-water facilities, electricity, mid-day meals and other infrastructure.
The petitioner urged the Supreme Court 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 satisfy the tests of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.
The case was listed as PRIYA MISHRA v UNION OF INDIA & ORS., Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1095/2026. Appearances for the petitioner were made by Mr. Narander Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR.