He filmed a government primary school, water pooled inside, children with nowhere to sit, and put it on social media; an FIR followed. Now the man at the centre has asked the High Court to quash it, and his petition is a close reading of the sections invoked: a computer-offence provision he says has nothing to do with filming a building, and two public-order provisions whose ingredients, he argues, the FIR does not even allege. His case is that highlighting the state of a public school is protected speech, and that prosecuting it would abuse the process of law. Nothing has been decided.
Prayagraj: A student and member of the Cockroach Janata Party has approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him after he recorded and circulated on social media a video showing the condition of a Government Primary School in Farrukhabad, contending that the FIR discloses no offence and that its continuation would be an abuse of the process of law [Gaurav Bharti @ Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P.].
The petition challenges an FIR lodged on August 19, 2026 under Sections 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and also seeks protection from arrest. It is likely to be heard next week.
The background
According to the petition, the matter began on August 16, 2026, when the petitioner entered the premises of a Government Primary School at Karanpur Majra Basmal, Farrukhabad, on a day the school was closed, and recorded a video concerning its condition. The video, the petition states, showed a disused or dilapidated building, and the petitioner pointed out that water had accumulated in the school, leaving children with no place to sit and resulting in holidays being given to them. He is stated to have a substantial social-media presence.
The FIR, registered following a complaint on August 19, alleges that the petitioner visited the school with an unidentified person who was under the influence of liquor and who spoke intemperately to the teachers. The petitioner’s case is that the video was made and published in good faith to highlight the condition of a public educational institution and matters concerning the welfare and facilities of children.
These are, respectively, the allegations in the FIR and the assertions in the petition. None has been tested; the Court has yet to hear the matter.
The challenge to the sections invoked
The heart of the petition is that the FIR, even taken at face value, does not make out the offences charged.
On Section 66 of the IT Act, the petition contends that the invocation is ex facie misconceived: there is no allegation of unauthorised access, copying or extraction of computer data, of a computer contaminant, of damage to or disruption of a computer system, or of deletion or alteration of computer information, or any other act contemplated under Section 43 of the IT Act. Merely recording a physical school building and circulating the resulting video on social media, the petition argues, does not by itself constitute the computer-related offence.
On Section 353 BNS, which deals with statements conducing to public mischief, the petition points out that the FIR does not allege that the video was intended or likely to cause fear or alarm to members of the armed forces, or to incite one class or community against another, or to promote enmity between groups. The only consequence alleged, it states, is that the image of the school was damaged, and reputational injury of that kind, the petition argues, is not the statutory consequence the provision contemplates.
On Section 352 BNS, concerning intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, the petition argues that the FIR merely uses a vernacular expression for intemperate talk without reproducing the actual words allegedly spoken, without specifying to whom they were directed, and without establishing the intention or knowledge that such words would provoke a person to break the public peace or commit an offence. Nor, it states, does the FIR attribute any assault, criminal force, threat or obstruction to the petitioner.
The free-speech argument
Beyond the section-by-section analysis, the petition frames the matter as one of free expression. Recording and communicating observations about the condition of a government primary school, it contends, is a matter of legitimate public concern, and the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to communicate views and information on such matters, subject to the reasonable restrictions the Constitution permits.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions on free speech, the petitioner argues that allowing an FIR to continue where the essential ingredients of the offences are absent would itself amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petition seeks the quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings, and protection during the pendency of the matter.
Why it matters
The petition raises, in a very ordinary factual setting, a question that recurs across the country: when does filming and posting a video about a public grievance cross from protected criticism into a criminal offence? The petitioner’s argument is not that the facts are disputed but that, even accepting them, the sections invoked do not fit, a classic ground for quashing under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, which the courts exercise where a prosecution is a clear abuse of process because the ingredients of the alleged offences are simply not present.
The challenge to Section 66 of the IT Act is the sharpest of the three and reflects a common criticism: that computer-offence provisions are sometimes invoked against ordinary social-media posts to which they have no application, since the section targets specific acts of hacking and data tampering, not the mere act of shooting a video on a phone and sharing it. If the FIR contains none of the ingredients the provision requires, its inclusion is hard to sustain. The arguments on the two BNS provisions are of a piece: both are offences that turn on a specific intent and a specific likely consequence, and a bare, non-specific FIR that neither reproduces the words complained of nor pleads the requisite intent is vulnerable to the charge that it discloses no offence at all.
What gives the case its wider resonance is the subject of the video, the state of a government school. Highlighting the condition of public institutions is close to the core of what free-speech protection exists to safeguard, and courts have repeatedly cautioned against the use of the criminal process to deter citizens from voicing grievances about public facilities. That said, none of this is settled here. The State will have its opportunity to defend the FIR, the factual allegation about the intoxicated companion and his conduct is yet to be examined, and the High Court has not yet expressed any view. What the petition squarely places before the Court is whether this FIR, on its own terms, discloses any offence, and whether a video about a crumbling school can be met with a criminal case. The presumption of innocence applies, and the matter awaits hearing.
Case Title: Gaurav Bharti @ Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P. (petition for quashing of FIR, Allahabad High Court)
FIR: Lodged August 19, 2026 under Sections 352 and 353 BNS and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000
Appearances: Advocates Shashwat Anand, Ratna Singh and Saumitra Anand for the petitioner
Status: Petition filed; likely to be heard next week. Allegations untested; no opinion expressed by the Court; presumption of innocence applies.