The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the restrictions imposed by Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh government authorities on the entry of outsiders, journalists, YouTubers, social-media users and activists into government schools and curbs on photography, videography, audio recording, interviews and live-streaming.“We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,” a Bench led by Justice PS Narasimha said, refusing to entertain the petition filed by one Priya Mishra.Amid CJP’s “School Thik Karo” campaign aimed to expose deficiencies in government school infrastructure, including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the PIL had urged the top court to quash orders issued by the Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh authorities to the extent they imposed blanket restrictions, and to declare that any regulation of public-interest documentation of schools satisfied the tests of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.The petitioner contended that the restrictions went against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression), 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business), 21 (right to life and liberty) and 21-A (right to free and compulsory education) of the Constitution.The petitioner has challenged Rajasthan’s Director of Secondary Education’s circular dated August 16, 2026 requiring outsiders to obtain a prior permission from the Principal before entering government school premises and a prior written permission for photography, videography, interviews, audio recording and live-streaming.It has also challenged a similar order issued by on August 19 by the District Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya, Azamgarh, Ballia, Basti, Balrampur, Shamli and Agra in Uttar Pradesh directing outsiders, YouTubers and persons associated with social media to refrain from entering schools or taking photographs or making videos without permission from the competent authority.Maintaining that there’s a difference between recording identifiable children and documenting the physical condition of government schools, the petitioner pointed out that restrictions intended to protect children should not automatically prevent public-interest documentation of classrooms, buildings, toilets, drinking-water facilities, electricity, mid-day meals and other infrastructure.