The Supreme Court of India has refused to intervene in a legal challenge against restrictions imposed by the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan on access to government schools.
The rules prevent journalists, social media influencers and activists from entering government school premises without permission. They also place restrictions on activities such as photography, videography, interviews and live streaming inside school campuses.
A Supreme Court bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha rejected a petition filed by Priya Mishra. The petition challenged the restrictions and argued that they could affect constitutional rights and make it difficult for people to report problems in government schools.
The petition also raised concerns about transparency. It argued that journalists and activists should be able to document problems such as damaged school buildings, poor facilities, lack of toilets and issues related to mid-day meals.
The restrictions came into focus after the ‘School Thik Karo’ campaign, which was launched by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The campaign aimed to inspect government schools, particularly in rural areas, and highlight problems related to school infrastructure and facilities.
During their inspections, CJP members faced opposition in some places. In Rajasthan, party activists reportedly faced an attack by a mob when they tried to visit a damaged government school in Rampura-Kanwarpura village.
The school later became the subject of further attention after authorities declared its old building unsafe and demolished it. The incident was cited as an example of why activists and journalists believe that public access and independent reporting are important for identifying problems in government schools.
Supporters of the petition argued that restrictions on photography, video recording and interviews could make it harder to show the actual conditions faced by students and teachers. They said public reporting can help bring attention to schools that need urgent repairs or better facilities.
However, the government has maintained restrictions on access to school premises, citing the need to protect students and ensure that schools function without unnecessary disturbance.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene has now attracted criticism from groups that support greater transparency in public education. They argue that schools receiving government funds should be subject to proper public accountability.
Critics also fear that strict restrictions could make it more difficult to identify and report problems affecting children’s education and safety.
The issue has therefore created a wider debate about the balance between student safety, school administration, freedom of reporting and public accountability. While authorities have the responsibility to protect children inside schools, campaigners say there should also be reasonable ways for genuine journalists and activists to document serious problems.
The Supreme Court’s decision has added another development to the ongoing debate over how government schools should be monitored and how concerns about children’s rights and school conditions can be brought to public attention.