The Supreme Courtroom on Monday requested the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining what data is sought to be obtained from the social media platform ‘X’ (previously Twitter) in reference to the FIRs in opposition to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft allegations.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was listening to coping with Upadhyay’s plea difficult Ghaziabad Police’s FIR in opposition to him over an alleged road-rage incident. Within the petition, he not too long ago filed an application difficult a discover issued by the UP Police to ‘X’ in search of data concerning his social media account.
The bench directed the police to elucidate what the knowledge concerning his social media account was sought in reference to the road-rage FIR or every other FIR.
The next order was handed after the listening to :
“Commissioner, Ghaziabad to file affidavit clarifying as to what sort of data is required to be furnished by X for the aim of investigation of topic FIR or every other FIR registered earlier in opposition to the petitioner. Nevertheless, no such data should be introduced within the public area. Petitioner has volunteered to help police authority for completion of investigation into the street rage case.”
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, for the petitioner, contended that the UP Police discover sought was broad in its ambit, in search of data concerning his social media account courting again to June 1, though the FIR is over an alleged incident of August 18. Even particulars concerning the cellular gadget used to log in to the account have been sought. Contending that it was an try and fish out data concerning the petitioner’s journalistic sources, Rai superior the necessity for tips.
“The investigating businesses have the impression that they should be extra loyal than the king…there needs to be tips on accessing social media data, just like the DK Basu tips for arrest…the digital rights should be protected..”
UP Further Advocate Basic submitted that the petition was primarily in search of quashing of the FIR, and there was a Medico Authorized Case report exhibiting accidents on the complainant, which warranted investigation.
Justice Bagchi then requested the State, “We’re on the width of the investigation…In a street rage case, why do you want digital footsteps of the accused?”.
The Addl AG stated that the petitioner’s allegations haven’t been said on affidavit. He additionally contended that the petitioner was making “broad and sweeping” statements in his petition, resembling {that a} authorities engineer was taking a 40% reduce for temple building. He stated that the petitioner was following a “holier than thou” angle and was blemishing all authorities. “You might be blemishing folks with none proof on document. Is that truthful? He names the engineer. What occurs to the fame of this man? If he’s speaking about regulation of police, what about regulation of journalism? Half a dozen averments on the footprint. Ought to there be media trial about everybody below the solar? Whether or not this case is staged is a matter of investigation. Eye-witness has given assertion that he noticed this. If there’s nothing, a closure report might be filed,” the AAG stated.
The CJI additionally raised questions in regards to the inquiry on digital footprints. “Solely factor is regardless of the digital footprint…going into that, what must be the bounds and tips…suppose you’ll be able to lay fingers on confidential data, and placed on document…that impacts privateness”
The AAG agreed to get directions from the Police concerning the discover and knowledgeable that there are two different FIRs in opposition to the journalist. Rai stated that he was prepared to take a seat with the AAG to debate the problem and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.
Final month, the Courtroom granted him interim protection from coercive motion, whereas asking the police to supply him a duplicate of the FIR.
In a current affidavit, Upadhyay claimed that UP police entered the residence of ex-Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri in seek for him. He argued that the alleged Delhi operation, considered alongside the opposite police actions in opposition to him, warrants judicial scrutiny into whether or not investigative powers have been used selectively or disproportionately.
Case: ABHISHEK UPADHYAY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026
