'Killing The Messenger': Allahabad High Court Stays FIR Against Journalist Who Reported 'Abysmal' Condition Of UP Govt School
The Allahabad High Court recently stayed the operation of an FIR registered against a journalist after he reported the "abysmal condition" of a government school in Lucknow, observing that the criminal case prima facie appeared to be retaliatory action for exposing the shortcomings.
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed that the FIR appeared to be tantamount to "killing the messenger", which, the Court said, "clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of law".
The Court has stayed the FIR until further orders and directed that no action be taken against the journalist pursuant to it.
Case in brief
The petitioner, journalist Amit Yadav, visited Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Begriya Mau, Gosaiganj, Lucknow, on August 20, 2026, to report on the school's condition.
According to his case, he found that the toilets were in a shabby condition, drinking water was unavailable and the overall condition of the school was not good. He also interviewed teachers.
An FIR was subsequently registered against him on August 24, 2026, under Sections 223, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The FIR alleged that the school was in excellent condition, its toilets were clean and there was no difficulty at the institution. It further alleged that the journalist entered the school without permission, interrupted studies and compelled two women teachers to speak.
Challenging the FIR, the petitioner moved the High Court and argued that Section 356 BNS concerns criminal defamation and, hence, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, such proceedings cannot be initiated through an FIR.
High Court's observations
The High Court agreed, observing that the Supreme Court had categorically held that criminal defamation proceedings have to be initiated through a complaint by the aggrieved person. The Court observed:
"Thus, in the instant case, the impugned First Information Report could not have been straightaway lodged under Section 356 of the BNS, 2023".
The bench accordingly found that the authorities had "patently erred in law" in lodging the FIR under Section 356.
The Court also considered Section 353 BNS, which contains an exception where a person has reasonable grounds to believe that a statement is true and publishes it in good faith.
After examining the color photographs placed on record, the Bench observed thus:
"Prima facie, a perusal of the coloured photographs which have been annexed along with the petition indicates the abysmal condition of the toilets of the concerned school and the abysmal condition of the premises of the school".
The Court said that the authorities should have first considered the exception under Section 353 before lodging the FIR.
Regarding Section 223 BNS, the Court noted that the provision relates to disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant.
The State counsel fairly admitted that he had not before the Court any such order restricting entry to the school premises. The High Court therefore said that the authorities had "patently erred in law" in lodging the FIR under Section 223.
The Court also referred to Section 215 BNSS, which requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant for cognizance of offences falling within Sections 206 to 223 BNS.
The Bench then examined the issue in the context of the Right to Education Act, 2009.
It noted that the Act prescribes various norms for schools, including separate toilets, safe and adequate drinking water and other infrastructure requirements.
The Court observed that the Government has a duty to provide these facilities and stated:
"Once as per the Act, 2009, a duty is cast on the Government to do so & in case the petitioner has highlighted the shortcomings in the school and its infrastructure, it was for the Government to have looked into it and to have initiated action for removal of the shortcomings instead of making it an ego issue and lodging the impugned First Information Report".
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Government of India, noting that non-compliance with prescribed norms in government-owned or government-controlled schools is attributable to the State itself.
The High Court concluded that the FIR appeared to have been lodged in retaliation for the journalist's exposure of the school's shortcomings. The Bench observed thus:
"...it is prima facie apparent that the First Information Report is retaliatory action to the shortcomings being exposed by the petitioner, a journalist and thus tantamounts to "killing the messenger" which clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of law".
It further stated:
"...prima facie it emerges that the petitioner has done no wrong by indicating the said shortcomings and thus impugned First Information Report appears to be a malicious act on the part of the authorities against the petitioner, a journalist".
Referring to Supreme Court decisions on freedom of the press, the Court reiterated that criminal cases should not be brought against journalists merely because their writings are perceived as criticism of the Government.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union Of India that "the exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a)" and that journalists must be able to "speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal".
Finding a prima facie case for interference, the Court stayed the operation of the FIR and directed that no action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to it.
The Court also directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit along with photographs depicting the school's current condition.
The affidavit must also disclose whether any construction, repair, alteration, modification or other change was carried out at the school after the journalist's report dated August 20, 2026.
The affidavit has to be filed within four weeks, after which the matter will be listed.
Case title - Amit Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others