Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain PIL Against Curbs on Entry, Recording in Rajasthan, UP Government Schools
Total Views |
New Delhi, September 4: The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging restrictions imposed by Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh authorities on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and civil-society representatives into government schools.
The PIL had challenged a August 16 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, under which outsiders were required to obtain prior permission from the school principal before entering government-school premises. Prior written permission was also made mandatory for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and live streaming. The petition also questioned an August 19 order of the District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya, directing outsiders, YouTubers and persons associated with social media not to enter council schools or photograph or record videos without permission from the competent authority. Similar directions were stated to have been issued in districts including Azamgarh, Ballia, Basti, Balrampur, Shamli and Agra.
Mishra argued that the restrictions violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Constitution, covering equality, freedom of speech and expression, the right to practise a profession, life and liberty, and the right to education.
The petition drew a distinction between recording identifiable children and documenting the physical condition of government schools. It argued that child-safety measures should not prevent legitimate public-interest documentation of classrooms, buildings, toilets, drinking-water facilities, electricity and mid-day meals.
The litigation gained attention amid the “School Thik Karo” campaign of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which sought to highlight alleged deficiencies in government-school infrastructure. The issue also followed an alleged assault on CJP activists during an inspection of a government school in Rajasthan.
The petitioner had sought quashing of the Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh orders insofar as they imposed what she described as blanket restrictions, and had urged the court to require that any limits on public-interest documentation meet the tests of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.
With the Supreme Court declining to entertain the Article 32 petition, the challenged permission-based restrictions remain in force for now. Importantly, the order was a refusal to entertain the petition; it should not be described as a Supreme Court judgment affirming the constitutional validity of every restriction.
A Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, in an order dated September 1, declined to entertain the petition filed by Priya Mishra under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Bench said: “We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.”
The PIL had challenged a August 16 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, under which outsiders were required to obtain prior permission from the school principal before entering government-school premises. Prior written permission was also made mandatory for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and live streaming.
Fundamental rights invoked
The petition drew a distinction between recording identifiable children and documenting the physical condition of government schools. It argued that child-safety measures should not prevent legitimate public-interest documentation of classrooms, buildings, toilets, drinking-water facilities, electricity and mid-day meals.
‘School Thik Karo’ campaign
ALSO READ: Dharti Pakad’ Nagarmal Bajoria Dies at 96, Leaves Behind a Unique Electoral Legacy
With the Supreme Court declining to entertain the Article 32 petition, the challenged permission-based restrictions remain in force for now. Importantly, the order was a refusal to entertain the petition; it should not be described as a Supreme Court judgment affirming the constitutional validity of every restriction.