Gaurav Bharti, also identified in the petition as Gaurav Kumar, has challenged an August 19 First Information Report registered under Sections 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The 22-year-old undergraduate has also sought protection from arrest and from consequential criminal proceedings.
The petition is listed for hearing on September 21. Bharti argues that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against him.
According to the petition, Bharti visited the Government Primary School at Karanpur Majra Basmal in Farrukhabad on August 16 as part of the CJP’s School Thik Karo campaign. The school was closed that day. He recorded a video showing what the plea describes as a disused or dilapidated structure and water accumulated on the premises.
Bharti said in the video that the waterlogging had left children without adequate space to sit and had resulted in holidays being declared. His petition says the recording was made and published in good faith to draw attention to the condition of a public educational institution and facilities available to children.
The FIR followed a complaint by a teacher. The complaint alleges that Bharti returned to the school the next day with an unidentified person who was under the influence of alcohol and spoke improperly to teachers. It also alleges that the episode harmed the institution’s image. Those allegations remain to be tested in court.
The complaint states that teachers, disturbed by the interaction, contacted the police emergency helpline 112. Bharti’s petition relies on that account to argue that the allegations stop short of describing conduct amounting to the offences cited. It maintains that publication of a video about conditions at a publicly funded school cannot, without the required statutory elements, be converted into criminal liability merely because staff objected to the recording or its circulation. The state will have an opportunity to respond to those arguments when the petition comes before the court on Monday.
Bharti disputes that the complaint establishes intentional insult or public mischief, the offences cited under Sections 352 and 353 of the BNS. His plea says the FIR does not accuse him of assault, criminal force, threats, physical injury, obstruction of teachers performing their duties, property damage or violence.
The petition further argues that Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, which concerns computer-related offences involving dishonest or fraudulent acts covered by Section 43 of the Act, has no application to the conduct alleged in the FIR. The court has not yet ruled on that contention.
Bharti has told the High Court that the criminal case could have serious consequences for his education and career. The plea also points to his social-media reach, stating that he has about 250,000 followers on Instagram and 150,000 on Facebook, which helped the school video circulate widely.
The dispute has emerged against a broader row over the CJP’s School Thik Karo campaign, launched to document deficiencies in government schools. Authorities in several Uttar Pradesh districts have issued directions restricting unauthorised entry, photography and videography on school premises, citing disruption of teaching, privacy and institutional concerns.
A separate petition challenging such restrictions was taken to the Supreme Court after orders in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan required outsiders or social-media users to obtain permission before entering or filming inside government schools. That case raised questions about balancing child protection and school administration with public-interest documentation of infrastructure.
