‘Killing The Messenger’: Allahabad HC Protects Journalist From FIR Over Report On Govt School's Plight

The Allahabad High Court has stayed an FIR registered against a journalist for reporting on the alleged poor condition of a government school in Lucknow, observing that the case appeared, prima facie, to be a retaliatory action against him for exposing shortcomings in the institution.

A bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava said the authorities should have looked into the reported deficiencies and taken steps to address them instead of “making it an ego issue” and registering an FIR against the journalist.

Court also found that the FIR, registered under Sections 223, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 [corresponding respectively to Sections 188, 505 and 499 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC)], suffered from apparent legal infirmities.

What was the journalist accused of?

According to the judgment, journalist Amit Yadav visited Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Begriya Mau, in Gosaiganj, Lucknow, on August 20 to report on the condition of the school. He found the toilets in a shabby condition, drinking water was unavailable and the overall condition of the institution was poor. He also interviewed some teachers.

Four days later, on August 24, an FIR was registered against him. The FIR alleged that the school was in “excellent condition”, that its toilets were clean and that there were no difficulties at the institution. It further alleged that Yadav had entered the premises without permission, interrupted the studies of children and compelled two women teachers to speak about the school. The FIR also alleged that the reporting was motivated by political prejudice.

The journalist approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest or prosecution.

Why did the high court find the FIR legally questionable?

On Section 356 BNS, which deals with defamation, court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016). It noted that criminal defamation proceedings cannot be initiated through an FIR and must be pursued through a complaint by the person aggrieved. Section 222 BNS also specifically provides that no court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 356 except on such a complaint.

Court also examined Section 353 BNS, relating to statements conducing to public mischief. It pointed out that the provision itself contains an exception where the person publishing or circulating the statement has reasonable grounds to believe it to be true and does so in good faith.

Court said photographs filed with the petition prima facie showed the “abysmal condition” of the school’s toilets and premises. Therefore, the authorities ought to have considered the statutory exception before proceeding against the journalist.

As for Section 223 BNS, the provision concerns disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The State’s counsel fairly informed the court that he did not have any such order restricting entry into the school. Court consequently held that the authorities had apparently erred in invoking Section 223.

‘Government should have looked into shortcomings’

Court placed the dispute in the context of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which lays down norms for schools, including separate toilets for boys and girls and safe and adequate drinking water for children.

It noted that where a journalist reports shortcomings in a government school’s infrastructure, the appropriate response should be to examine and remedy those deficiencies.

“Instead of making it an ego issue” and filing the FIR, the government should have looked into the shortcomings and initiated action to remove them, court said.

The bench said it was prima facie apparent that the FIR was “retaliatory action” for the shortcomings exposed by Yadav and amounted to “killing the messenger”. It added that the FIR appeared to be a “malicious act” against the journalist.

Court stresses journalists’ freedom to ‘speak truth to power’

The high court reiterated that journalistic freedom forms part of the freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

It cited the Supreme Court’s observation in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India that “India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal”. The Supreme Court had also stressed that free citizens cannot exist when the news media is “chained to adhere to one position”.

The high court, finding a prima facie case for interference, stayed the operation of the FIR and directed that no action be taken against Yadav under it until further orders.

It also directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, to personally file an affidavit within four weeks, along with photographs showing the school’s present condition and details of any repair, construction or modification undertaken after the journalist’s August 20 report.

Case title: Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow & 3 Others

Order date: September 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava