Rogue Video Triggers Storm—Legal Fraternity, Teachers Slam Digital Mugging in Mandi School
SHIMLA: A storm has erupted across Himachal’s educational and legal circles after a rogue video shot inside a government school in Kahanwal, Mandi, surfaced online—without permission, without context, and without consent.
The grainy footage, shot in guerrilla style, zooms in on the school principal’s attire, what he’s chewing, and even demands official documents be presented on camera.
All this, while young students shuffle nervously in the background of their own classroom—ambushed without warning and at a time when they are having mid-day meals.
The man behind the camera claims to be an advocate. If he is truly an advocate, then he has torn Constitutional rights of children and teachers into pieces, yet the Legal fraternity is silent.
What if tomorrow a terrorist in the guise of journalist, social media influencer enters class room and instead spray bullets, charged the teachers.
This incident has triggered sharp outrage—especially from teachers, legal experts, and civil society watchdogs—who say this isn’t journalism. It’s digital vigilantism.
“This is not social accountability. This is digital mugging,” said Pradeep Thakur, a local education activist. “Someone walked into a classroom, humiliated a principal, twisted a harmless dress code issue into a scandal—and then peddled it for views. That’s not justice. That’s character assassination.”
The legal fraternity is now under pressure to act. Just days ago, lawyers had laid siege to the Chhota Shimla police station after a constable allegedly roughed up an advocate in Nav Bahar. That video had gone viral too—and the constable was suspended.
Now, critics are asking: Will the HP Bar Association stand up when it’s a rogue advocate weaponizing a classroom?
Several Himachal-based social media news platforms—registered with the state’s Department of Information and Public Relations—have gleefully just reposted the clip not for scrutiny, just chasing virality at the cost of slander and school privacy.
Experts say the law is clear.
Section 66E of the IT Act prohibits “capturing, publishing or transmitting images of a private individual without consent.”
Section 67 addresses transmission of objectionable content.
Section 79 holds platforms and intermediaries liable for hosting unlawful content.
“This is a textbook case under Section 66E,” says High Court advocate Kameshwar Dhaulta. “What happened in Mandi is a reckless privacy invasion, meant to humiliate, not expose. Every portal that carried this without verification should face penalties under Section 79.”
Teachers say they’re being targeted under the garb of so-called reforms.
“This is fallout from the ‘vyavastha parivartan’ push,” one teacher said. “We were verbally told to ‘look disciplined’—no official circular, no clarity. And now, digital vigilantes are entering schools trying to settle scores, chasing cheap clicks.”
Senior lecturer and columnist Sachin Thakur warns the issue is deeper than one video. “The Education Department’s vague dress code circular already felt like an ideological slap. Now this digital hit job is a warning shot—teachers are next in line for online harassment,” he writes.
“Schools are meant to ignite questions—not impose blind conformity. Education either frees us, or domesticates us. Right now, it's being hijacked.”
Legal critics and civil society voices are demanding the principal immediately lodge an FIR under Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act, and hold both the videographer and the influencers accountable.
Should not the Himachal government cleanse its registry of social media influencers/ portals that thrive on "viral voyeurism and yellow journalism,” rather than verified reporting?
“The Digital Age may amplify voices—but it also amplifies accountability,” says Dhaulta. “If you invade classrooms with a camera, you better be ready for a courtroom.”
Meanwhile, the silence of the state’s PR Department is drawing criticism. “Why hasn’t DPR acted yet? Do viral clicks matter more than educators’ dignity?” ask media critics.
The message is loud and clear: This isn’t accountability. This is abuse. And the law must catch up—fast.
