U.P. Activist of Allahabad High Court condemns FIR against video of dilapidated UP School
The activist who has been associated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has filed an application to the Allahabad High Court to set aside an FIR filed against him for making and uploading a video that showed the pathetic condition of a government primary school in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh. The petition raises issues under criminal law on the issue of criminalization of social media posts if they highlight issues of public importance.
The petitioner Gaurav Bharti visited a government primary school in Farrukhabad on 16th August 2026 under the ‘School Thik Karo’ campaign of the CJP. He is said to have filmed a video of the school’s dilapidated state and focused on the school’s lack of suitable facilities for children.
The petitioner argues that the video was posted in good faith to raise awareness about the state of a public school or institution of learning. On August 19, an FIR was registered after a teacher made a complaint.
The complaint allegedly alleged damage to the reputation of the educational institution by Bharti. It also claimed that he went to the school with another man, who was allegedly drunk, and talked to teachers in an improper manner.
Opposition to the BNS and IT Act provisionsThe petitioner has challenged the trigger of Sections 352, 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Section 352 BNS is about insulting with intent to provoke breach of peace, Section 353 is about statements that would lead to public mischief. The petitioner contends that the FIR does not mention the words that are alleged to be used in the act of intentional insult and that the petitioner’s act was unable to satisfy the statutory elements of these offences.
He has also held that Section 66 of the IT Act has been misapplied and that simply recording the physical school building and uploading the video is not the computer-related conduct that the section was aimed at.
The petition also relies on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that states that the citizens have a fundamental right to communicate their views on matters of legitimate public concern and upon reasonable restrictions in accordance with Article 19(2).
The petitioner argues that the FIR does not contain any allegation of assault, criminal force, threat, physical injury or obstruction of teachers or damage to property. Hence he has sought the FIR to be quashed and that he be protected from arrest.
The petition is pending in the Allahabad High Court for hearing on September 21, 2026. The claims against the activist and his legal action are issues that are up to the courts to consider at this point.
The case raises a significant issue in the law related to the distinction between lawful criticism of the government and criminal charge and conviction. Authorities may take action against fabricated and/or unlawful content, but criminal provisions must meet the statutory elements. It is thus a possibility that the High Court’s consideration of the FIR will help to determine the extent to which the criminal law will be stretched with respect to the state of public institutions when it comes to social media.
