The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Ghaziabad Police to state the specific details it has sought from microblogging platform X during its investigation into a road-rage case registered against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant instructed the investigating authorities to file an affidavit explaining the necessity and nature of the information requested from the social media company. The bench observed that an appropriate balance must be maintained between an individual’s right to privacy and the authority of law enforcement to conduct a thorough inquiry on behalf of a complainant.
Scrutiny over Digital Footprint Requests
During the hearing, the bench—which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana—questioned why investigators would need an accused person’s digital footprint in an incident arising from an alleged traffic altercation. The court noted that Upadhyay is cooperating with the inquiry and stated that once the police submit the required clarification, the information will be placed in the public domain until further orders.
Senior counsel appearing for Upadhyay submitted that judicial guidelines are urgently needed to regulate how police access an accused person’s personal digital records. The defense highlighted that authorities in this case have been pursuing social media history, device IMEI numbers, and related private data.
Police Defend Inquiry, Question Reporting
Appearing for the Ghaziabad Police, counsel urged the bench to consider the broad accusations Upadhyay had previously published regarding an engineer involved in the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, questioning the standards of such reporting while regulation of police powers was being sought.
The counsel maintained that the investigation is based on an eyewitness statement, adding that the matter remains at the inquiry stage and will be formally closed if no evidence is found against the journalist.
Allegations of Retaliatory Action
Upadhyay has petitioned the apex court to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against him at Ghaziabad’s Indirapuram police station, or alternately, to transfer the inquiry from the Uttar Pradesh Police to an independent investigative body.
In his plea, Upadhyay alleged that the criminal complaint was fabricated to target him for his journalistic reports on alleged financial irregularities in Ram temple donations and wider corruption in the state. He also stated that authorities failed to provide him with an official copy of the complaint and alleged that officers pressured nearby shopkeepers to delete CCTV footage recorded at the time of the purported incident.
On August 25, the Supreme Court granted Upadhyay interim protection against coercive action and ordered the police to deliver a copy of the FIR to him.
