Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Curbs On Entry To Government Schools Amid CJP Campaign

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the 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 filed by Priya Mishra was heard by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, which refused to entertain it. "We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India." 

The petition assumed significance in the wake of the “School Thik Karo” campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Party to expose the deficiencies in government school infrastructure. It specifically challenged an August 16, 2026 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, which requires outsiders to obtain prior permission from the principal before entering the premises of government schools. It also requires prior written permission for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

Regarding Uttar Pradesh, the petition refers 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 states that similar directions were issued in several other districts, including Azamgarh, Ballia, Basti, Balrampur, Shamli and Agra.

The petitioner argued that the restrictions violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Constitution. It was contended that freedom of speech and expression encompasses legitimate journalism and dissemination of information concerning public institutions, while recognising that the State has a duty to protect children's privacy, dignity and safety.

The petitioner contended that there is a distinction between recording identifiable children and documenting the physical condition of a government school. According to the petition, 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.