The Allahabad high court stayed the arrest of Gaurav Bharti alias Gaurav Kumar, a student and member of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), following an FIR registered against him by the Uttar Pradesh Police for recording a video showing the state of a government primary school in Farrukhabad district.
Hearing the writ petition, a division bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra issued an order on September 22 directing the state government to file its reply.
In the petition, Bharti challenged the FIR registered on August 19 under Sections 352 and 353 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at Nawabganj police station in Fatehgarh district.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR because the allegations made in it did not disclose the essential ingredients of the invoked offences.
According to the petition, on August 16, the petitioner entered the premises of a government primary school at Karanpur Majra Basmal, Farrukhabad, and recorded a video. The petition states the school was closed that day and the video depicted a “disused/dilapidated building, with a cross mark allegedly shown on a structure depicted as in use.”
The petitioner said the video highlighted water accumulation in the school, which left children without sitting space and led to holidays. The petitioner submitted that the video was created and published “in good faith to highlight the condition of a public educational institution and matters concerning the welfare and facilities of children”.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioner said the video highlighted water accumulation in the school, which left children without sitting space and led to holidays. The petitioner submitted that the video was created and published “in good faith to highlight the condition of a public educational institution and matters concerning the welfare and facilities of children”.
{{/usCountry}}The FIR alleged that the petitioner entered the school without authority, misrepresented the condition of the institution and visited with an individual who was “under the influence of liquor and spoke useless talks with the teachers”.
The petitioner submitted that the FIR fails to reproduce the spoken words, state the target of the remarks, or demonstrate intentional insult, assault, criminal force, threat, obstruction, or violence.
The petition stated that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to communicate views on “matters of legitimate public concern.” Citing Supreme Court precedents on free speech, the petitioner submitted that continuing the FIR without the essential elements of the offences constitutes an abuse of the process of law.