The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of a Police Station in Lucknow to explain how a chargesheet was forwarded in a case after the Court had stayed the FIR against student leader Ashutosh Kumar Pandey over his Facebook post alleging irregularities in the State Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2025.

A Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani passed the order after the State informed it that it had forwarded a chargesheet on September 21, 2026, in connection with the case.

The FIR was initially registered at Hussainganj Police Station under Sections 221, 292 and 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

However, on August 11, the High Court stayed the FIR on a plea moved by Pandey seeking its quashing.

Briefly put, in a Facebook post of May 9, 2026, Pandey had alleged irregularities in the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2025. The select list for the examination had been issued on May 7, 2026.

Challenging the FIR, Pandey's Counsel had argued before the HC that the offences in the FIR were not made out from its contents.

Regarding Section 221 BNS, which deals with obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions, the petitioner's counsel argued that the FIR did not indicate that Pandey had obstructed any public servant.

Regarding Section 292, which punishes public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for, counsel submitted that the FIR did not disclose any act or illegal omission causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public.

The petitioner's counsel had also argued that the authorities had failed to consider the exception under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which concerns statements conducing to public mischief.

The provision provides an exception where the person making, publishing, or circulating the alleged false information has reasonable grounds to believe it to be true.

It was contended that if Pandey believed that irregularities had occurred in the recruitment examination, the authorities ought to have investigated those allegations rather than registering an FIR against him.

It was also argued that the authorities had apparently resorted to "killing the messenger" instead of examining the allegations raised on social media.

As regards Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, which deals with cheating by personation using a computer resource, Pandey's counsel had argued that the offence was not made out.

After considering these submissions, the High Court had found a prima facie case for interference and directed that the FIR remain stayed until further orders. It also ordered that no coercive action be taken against Pandey pursuant to the FIR.

In its September 30 order, the Bench noted the State's submission that the investigation was completed and the chargesheet was forwarded on September 21, despite the earlier order staying the FIR.

The Court accordingly directed the SHO of Hussainganj Police Station to explain, by filing a personal affidavit, how the investigation was conducted and how the chargesheet was forwarded in the matter.

At the State's request, the Court granted two weeks to file the affidavit. The matter has been listed for October 22, 2026.