The Allahabad High Court has stayed the operation of an FIR registered against journalist Amit Yadav over his reporting on the alleged poor condition of a government school in Lucknow.
A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava found a prima facie case for interference and directed that no action be taken against Yadav under the FIR until further orders.
Background of the Case
According to the petition, Yadav visited Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Begriya Mau, Gosaiganj, Lucknow, on August 20, 2026, in his capacity as a reporter. He reported that the school premises and toilets were in poor condition and that drinking water was not regularly available for students. He also interviewed teachers.
Four days later, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 223, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The allegations included entering the school without permission, interrupting classes and compelling two teachers to speak about the school's condition.
Court's Observations
The High Court noted that Section 356, concerning defamation, could not be invoked through an FIR in the manner adopted. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, the Bench observed that criminal defamation proceedings must be initiated through a complaint by the aggrieved person.
The Court also examined Section 353, which contains an exception where a person has reasonable grounds to believe that a statement is true and publishes it in good faith. The photographs placed before the Court, the Bench said, prima facie showed the poor condition of the school's toilets and premises.
Regarding Section 223, the State's counsel fairly informed the Court that no order issued by a public servant restricting entry into the school had been produced. The Court therefore found the invocation of the provision legally questionable.
The Bench further referred to statutory standards under the Right to Education Act, including safe drinking water and separate toilets for boys and girls, and observed that the Government had a duty to address shortcomings in school infrastructure.
The Court also emphasised the protection given to journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"India's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal."
Decision
Holding that a prima facie case for interference was made out, the High Court stayed the operation of the FIR and directed that no action be taken against Amit Yadav pursuant to it until further orders.
The Court also directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit within four weeks regarding the school's present condition, supported by photographs and details of any repairs, construction or alterations carried out after the journalist's August 20 report.
The matter was directed to be listed after four weeks.
Case Details:
Case Title: Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8913 of 2026
Judges: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Decision Date: September 8, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)