Court holds FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as prima facie retaliatory, emphasizes protection of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution
In a significant judgment dated September 8, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench, Lucknow) stayed the operation of an FIR lodged against journalist Amit Yadav under Sections 223, 353, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023). The FIR was filed by authorities following the journalist’s report on the poor sanitary and infrastructural conditions of Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, a government school in Gosaiganj, Lucknow. The court found the FIR to be prima facie malicious and retaliatory, aimed at “killing the messenger” rather than addressing the genuine grievances raised about the school’s condition.
The petitioner, Amit Yadav, had visited the school on August 20, 2026, to report on issues such as dirty toilets, lack of drinking water, and overall dilapidation of the school infrastructure. Despite photographic evidence supporting the journalist’s claims, the authorities registered an FIR on August 24, 2026, alleging that the journalist entered the premises without permission, disrupted classes, and coerced teachers to speak against the institution. The FIR invoked Sections 223 (disobedience of a public servant’s order), 353 (statements conducing to public mischief), and 356 (criminal defamation) of the BNS, 2023.
The court examined the applicability of these sections and found critical legal errors in the FIR’s registration. It noted that Section 356, relating to defamation, requires complaint initiation by the aggrieved person and cannot be the basis for an FIR, relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016). Section 353 was also held inapplicable as the petitioner had reasonable grounds to believe his report was true and acted in good faith, protected by an exception under the same section. Additionally, Section 223 was deemed irrelevant since no official order had been promulgated forbidding the petitioner’s entry to the school, a mandatory condition for that offense.
The court further referenced the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, highlighting that the norms and standards prescribed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act impose an obligation on the State to maintain school infrastructure. The petitioner’s report highlighted violations of these standards, which should have prompted remedial action by the government rather than criminal proceedings against the journalist.
Reinforcing the constitutional protection of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a), the court cited multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020) and Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of U.P. (2024), emphasizing the essential role of journalists in holding the State accountable and the chilling effect that retaliatory FIRs have on free speech.
In light of these observations, the court stayed the FIR and directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., to file a personal affidavit within four weeks detailing the current condition of the school, supported by photographs and information on any corrective measures taken since the journalist’s report. The court reserved further orders on the matter for a later date.
This judgment is a critical reaffirmation of the legal safeguards protecting journalists from vexatious criminal proceedings when reporting on governance issues, especially under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the constitutional right to free speech and the public’s right to be informed about government accountability.
Bottom Line:
FIR against a journalist alleging violations under Sections 223, 353, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for reporting on the poor condition of a government school was prima facie found to be retaliatory and malicious. The court emphasized the importance of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 223, 353, 356; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Sections 18, 19; Constitution of India Article 19(1)(a)
Amit Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975474
