A Public Interest Litigation filed before the Supreme Court has challenged restrictions imposed by education authorities in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and civil-society representatives into government schools, as well as curbs on photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

The petition assumes significance in the wake of the “School Thik Karo” campaign being undertaken by the Cockroach Janat Party to expose the deficiencies in government school infrastructure.

The petition filed by Priya Mishra, was mentioned before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday for urgent listing. Advocate Narendra Mishra, for the petitioner, submitted that orders issued by State authorities could result in FIRs being registered against persons who photograph or record videos showing deficiencies in government schools, including under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

When counsel pointed out that the petition had already been filed and sought a date, the Chief Justice said, “We will see.”

The petition specifically challenges an August 16, 2026 circular issued by Rajasthan's Director of Secondary Education, which requires outsiders to obtain prior permission from the principal before entering government school premises. It also requires prior written permission for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and livestreaming.

Regarding Uttar Pradesh, the petition refers to an August 19 order issued by the District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya, directing that outsiders, YouTubers and persons associated with social media should not enter council schools or take photographs or videos without permission from the competent authority. The petition states that similar directions were issued in several other districts, including Azamgarh, Ballia, Basti, Balrampur, Shamli and Agra.

The petitioner argues that the restrictions violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21-A of the Constitution. It contends that freedom of speech and expression encompasses legitimate journalism and dissemination of information concerning public institutions, while recognising that the State has a duty to protect children's privacy, dignity and safety.

The petitioner contends that there is a distinction between recording identifiable children and documenting the physical condition of a government school. According to the petition, restrictions intended to protect children should not automatically prevent public-interest documentation of classrooms, buildings, toilets, drinking-water facilities, electricity, mid-day meals and other infrastructure.

The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to quash the impugned Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh orders to the extent that they impose blanket restrictions, and to direct that any regulation of public-interest documentation satisfy the tests of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.