A student and member of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) has approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him after he allegedly recorded and circulated on social media a video showing the condition of a Government Primary School in Farrukhabad.

The petition filed by Gaurav Bharti @ Gaurav Kumar challenges the FIR lodged on August 19 under Sections 352 and 353 of the BNS and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioner has also sought protection from arrest and consequential criminal proceedings, arguing that the FIR, even if its allegations are accepted at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked.

The petition has been filed through Advocates Shashwat Anand, Ratna Singh and Saumitra Anand. The matter will likely be heard next week.

About the petition

According to the petition, the controversy began on August 16, 2026, when the petitioner allegedly entered the premises of a Government Primary School situated at Karanpur Majra Basmal, Farrukhabad and recorded a video concerning the condition of the school.

The petition states that the school was closed that day and that the video showed a "disused/dilapidated" building, with a cross mark allegedly shown on a structure depicted as in use.

It further states that the petitioner pointed out in the video that water had accumulated in the school, leaving children with no place to sit and resulting in holidays being given to them.

The petitioner's case is that the video was made and published "in good faith" to highlight the condition of a public educational institution and matters concerning the welfare and facilities of children. However, it adds that an FIR was lodged against him.

The petition also states that the petitioner has a substantial social-media presence, with approximately 2.5 lakh Instagram followers and 1.5 lakh Facebook followers.

The FIR alleges that the petitioner visited the school with an unidentified person who was allegedly under the influence of liquor and spoke "अनर्गल बातें" (useless talks) with the teachers.

A complaint was thereafter submitted on August 19, leading to registration of the FIR.

The petitioner, however, argues that the FIR does not reproduce the actual words allegedly spoken, does not specify whom the words were directed at or explain how they constituted intentional insult.

It also allegedly does not attribute any assault, criminal force, threat, obstruction or other act of violence to the petitioner.

The petition categorically challenges the invocation of Section 66 IT Act, contending that the FIR contains no allegation of unauthorized access, copying or extraction of computer data, introduction of a computer contaminant, damage to or disruption of a computer system, deletion or alteration of computer information, or any other act contemplated under Section 43 of the IT Act.

The petition describes the invocation of Section 66 as "ex facie misconceived" and states that merely recording a physical school building and circulating the resulting video on social media does not, by itself, constitute the computer-related offence.

The petition also argues that the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 353 BNS, which concerns statements conducing to public mischief.

It points out that the FIR does not allege that the video was intended or likely to cause fear or alarm to members of the Armed Forces, or to incite a class or community to commit an offence against another class or community, or to promote enmity between groups.

The only alleged consequence, according to the petition, is that the “image of that school was damaged”. The petitioner argues that such alleged reputational injury, by itself, does not constitute the statutory consequence contemplated under Section 353 BNS.

Similarly, regarding Section 352 BNS, the petition argues that the FIR merely uses the expression "अनर्गल बातें" without reproducing the actual words allegedly spoken or establishing the requisite intention or knowledge that such words would provoke a person to break public peace or commit an offence.

The petitioner has contended that recording and communicating observations concerning the condition of a Government Primary School is a matter of legitimate public concern.

The petition states that the "right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)" includes the right to communicate views and information concerning matters of legitimate public concern, subject to lawful restrictions.

Relying on Supreme Court's judgments on Free speech, the petitioner argues that continuation of the FIR, where the essential ingredients of the offences are allegedly absent, would amount to "an abuse of the process of law".

The petition seeks quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings as well as protection during the pendency of the proceedings.