News Desk: The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police seeking the digital activity records of journalist Abhishek Upadhyay from June 2026 onwards. The journalist had earlier published reports on alleged theft of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Temple and is facing a road rage case registered in Ghaziabad.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the police notice issued to social media platform X on August 22 as excessive. The notice sought information covering a period beginning June 1, even though the alleged road rage incident took place on August 18.
Questioning the relevance of such a broad data request, the bench said investigators could not seek extensive personal information without establishing its necessity and proportionality to the case.
The court quashed the August 22 notice and directed that confidential personal information relating to the period before that date could not be obtained under the order. It further clarified that information sought after the FIR was registered must also satisfy the test of proportionality, particularly when alternative investigative measures had not been shown to be inadequate.
The bench also ordered that information collected for the period before August 22 must not be used against Upadhyay. His arrest will remain stayed until further orders, and the police have been directed to release the vehicle involved in the alleged incident within two days.
The court highlighted broader concerns about privacy and the protection of personal data during criminal investigations. It warned against using investigations as a pretext for conducting unrestricted searches into an individual’s private information.
The judges observed that clear guidelines were needed to protect citizens’ privacy and the confidentiality of personal data, while ensuring that legitimate investigations could continue. They also noted that unrestricted police access to personal information could affect the work of investigative journalists.
Representing the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Advocate General Sharan Dev Singh Thakur argued that the Information Technology Intermediary Rules, 2021, empowered police to seek information from service providers. However, the court clarified that the issue concerned how such powers were exercised, rather than whether the powers existed.
Upadhyay’s lawyer, senior advocate Pradeep Rai, argued that the case raised wider questions about the use of confidential information against individuals. He said the journalist believed the road rage case was fabricated to target him over his reporting. These allegations have not been established by the court.
According to the FIR, the alleged incident occurred near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad on August 18, when a motorcyclist brushed against Upadhyay’s car. The complainant alleged that the journalist used abusive language and a caste-based slur.
Upadhyay has challenged the FIR and sought an independent investigation. The Supreme Court’s latest order addresses the police request for digital data and does not determine the merits of the underlying road rage allegations.
The ruling brings renewed attention to the balance between investigative powers, individual privacy and the freedom of journalists to report on matters of public interest.
Reader Comments 0