The Allahabad High Court has granted interim protection and stayed the arrest of a student and Cockroach Janata Party member booked over a video showing the condition of a government primary school in Farrukhabad, and has sought the State’s response to his petition to quash the FIR.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted interim protection and stayed the arrest of Gaurav Bharti, also known as Gaurav Kumar, a student and member of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), who has challenged an Uttar Pradesh Police 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 [Gaurav Bharti @ Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra passed the order while seeking a response from the State government, and gave the respondents time to file a counter affidavit. The allegations in the FIR are untested, the petitioner’s account is that of his petition, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
The FIR
The petition challenges an FIR lodged on August 19, 2026 under Sections 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to the petition, the FIR alleges that the petitioner illegally prepared a video of the school and misrepresented its condition, and that he visited the school with an unidentified person, allegedly under the influence of liquor, who spoke what the FIR calls “useless talks” to the teachers. A complaint was submitted on August 19, leading to the FIR.
The petition states that on August 16, 2026 the petitioner entered the Government Primary School at Karanpur Majra Basmal, Farrukhabad, which was closed that day, and recorded a video of its condition. It says the video showed a disused or dilapidated building, with a cross mark on a structure depicted as being in use, and that the petitioner pointed out that water had collected in the school, leaving children with no place to sit and leading to holidays for them. It says he made and published the video in good faith to highlight the condition of a public educational institution, and that he has a sizeable social-media following.
The petitioner’s grounds
Appearing through Advocates Shashwat Anand, Ratna Singh and Saumitra Anand, the petitioner argues that the FIR, even if its allegations are accepted at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of the offences invoked. He seeks quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, and protection from arrest while the petition is pending.
On Section 66 of the IT Act, the petition calls the invocation “ex facie misconceived”. It says the FIR contains no allegation of unauthorised access, copying or extraction of computer data, introduction of a contaminant, damage or disruption to a computer system, deletion or alteration of information, or any other act under Section 43 of the Act, and that recording a school building and posting the video online is not a computer-related offence.
On Section 353 of the BNS, which deals with statements conducing to public mischief, the petition says the FIR does not allege that the video was meant or likely to cause fear or alarm to members of the Armed Forces, to incite one class or community against another, or to promote enmity between groups. It says the only alleged consequence is that the image of the school was damaged, which by itself is not the consequence the section contemplates. On Section 352, it says the FIR merely uses the phrase “useless talks” without reproducing the words or showing the intention or knowledge needed to provoke a breach of the peace.
Free speech
The petitioner also contends that recording and communicating observations about the condition of a government primary school is a matter of legitimate public concern, and that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) covers the right to communicate information on such matters, subject to lawful restrictions. Relying on Supreme Court judgments on free speech, he says that continuing an FIR in which the essential ingredients are missing would be an abuse of the process of law.
What happens next
The State has been asked to respond to the petition, and the petitioner’s arrest remains stayed until the case is heard further. The next hearing date was not reported. The State’s version is contained in the FIR, and the Court has not yet examined it.
Why it matters
The order is an interim step that protects the petitioner from arrest while the Court examines whether the FIR discloses the offences invoked. It is not a finding on the video, on the school’s condition or on the FIR’s allegations, and the questions of intention and effect that the petition raises remain to be decided when the case is heard.
Case Title: Gaurav Bharti @ Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others
Bench: Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Shashwat Anand, Ratna Singh and Saumitra Anand appeared for the petitioner.