A petition has reached the Supreme Court challenging restrictions placed by education authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on access to government schools. The plea questions rules requiring prior permission for journalists, YouTubers, social-media users, civil-society representatives and members of the public who seek to inspect or document school facilities and functioning.
The petition was filed by advocate Narendra Mishra on behalf of Priya Mishra. It was mentioned before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan. During the hearing, the bench verbally indicated that the matter would be listed.
At the centre of the petition are restrictions concerning entry into government schools and activities such as photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and live streaming.
The plea argues that making prior approval mandatory for entering government schools creates excessive restrictions on public scrutiny. It contends that such rules are arbitrary and disproportionate and infringe fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Constitution.
The petitioner has acknowledged that protecting children's privacy, dignity, and safety is important. However, the plea draws a distinction between recording identifiable students or accessing confidential student records and documenting public infrastructure or the implementation of government education programmes.
According to the petition, legitimate public-interest documentation should not automatically be restricted simply because it takes place within a government school.
The petition also questions the extent of discretion available to school principals under the restrictions. It claims that authorities have not been provided with clear criteria governing when access can be approved or denied.
The plea specifically points to the absence of transparent reasons for refusal, a defined timeline for decisions, and an effective mechanism for reviewing such decisions.
It argues that requiring permission from officials responsible for the functioning of schools could weaken independent scrutiny, particularly when the purpose of an inspection is to identify possible shortcomings in the same system.
Instead of a blanket restriction, the petitioner has proposed measures aimed at protecting children while allowing legitimate public-interest reporting.
These include keeping visitors out of classrooms while teaching is underway, safeguarding confidential documents, and preventing the recording of identifiable children. The plea also suggests masking children's faces and personal information where documentation is permitted.
The petitioner maintains that such safeguards could address privacy and safety concerns without completely preventing independent documentation of school infrastructure and facilities.
The petition refers to reported concerns involving the condition of government schools, including institutions without proper buildings or toilets. It also mentions schools where toilets are non-functional or where drinking water and electricity facilities are inadequate.
Other issues cited include alleged shortcomings relating to mid-day meals, attendance, enrolment, and other educational facilities.
The plea argues that independent inspections and reporting can help bring such deficiencies to the attention of government authorities as well as the wider public.
The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to quash the orders issued in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh that impose the challenged restrictions.
It also seeks a declaration that any limits placed on legitimate public-interest reporting and scrutiny of government schools must meet constitutional standards of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.
In addition, the plea seeks directions to ensure that public-interest scrutiny cannot be blocked merely because it may reveal deficiencies involving school buildings, toilets, drinking water, electricity, boundary walls, mid-day meals, attendance, enrolment or other statutory facilities.
The petition has further sought state-wise information on government schools that do not have buildings, toilets or adequate drinking-water facilities.
It asks for details of the total number of such schools and the districts where they are located. The request for this data forms part of the broader argument that independent scrutiny can help identify gaps in basic school infrastructure and bring them into public focus.
The Supreme Court's consideration of the plea could therefore have implications for how access to government schools is regulated in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, particularly for public-interest documentation and reporting.
