Apex Court Presses UP Police to Justify Sweeping Social Media Probe Notice Against Journalist

(Judicial Quest News Network)

7, September,2026-The Supreme Court has directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit clarifying the precise scope of information sought from the social media platform ‘X’ concerning journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who had reported on alleged donation theft linked to the Ram Mandir construction.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was seized of Upadhyay’s writ petition challenging an FIR registered against him by Ghaziabad Police in an alleged road-rage matter.

Upadhyay had earlier moved an application contesting a notice issued to ‘X’ by the Uttar Pradesh Police, seeking data pertaining to his social media account.

The Bench called upon the police to explain the necessity and extent of the information sought whether in connection with the road-rage FIR or any other proceeding registered against the petitioner.

In its order, the Court recorded that the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, is to file an affidavit clarifying what information is required to be furnished by X for the purposes of investigating the FIR in question or any other FIR previously registered against the petitioner, while directing that no such information be disclosed publicly.

The petitioner, for his part, has volunteered to cooperate with the investigation into the road-rage allegation.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai submitted that the notice issued by the UP Police was disproportionately wide in scope, seeking account data dating back to June 1 despite the FIR pertaining to an incident on August 18 extending even to the specific devices used to access the account.

He contended this amounted to an impermissible attempt to unearth the petitioner’s journalistic sources, and pressed for the framing of guidelines governing law enforcement access to social media data, drawing an analogy to the safeguards established under the D.K. Basu framework for arrests.

The Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh countered that the petition effectively sought quashing of the FIR, pointing to a Medico-Legal Case report documenting injuries to the complainant as warranting further investigation.

He further submitted that several of the petitioner’s allegations including claims regarding an engineer’s alleged financial impropriety in temple construction remained unsupported by affidavit, and questioned whether unproven allegations ought to be aired without corresponding scrutiny of journalistic conduct itself.

Justice Bagchi, probing the rationale for the breadth of the inquiry, questioned why an examination of the accused’s “digital footprint” was necessary in a matter concerning road rage.

The Chief Justice similarly flagged the need for defined limits and safeguards where digital-footprint investigations risk exposing confidential information and implicating privacy concerns.

The State agreed to seek instructions from the police regarding the notice and disclosed that two further FIRs are pending against the journalist.

Counsel for the petitioner indicated willingness to engage with the State to resolve the matter and reiterated his client’s undertaking to cooperate with the investigation.

The Court had previously granted Upadhyay interim protection from coercive action and directed that he be furnished a copy of the FIR.

In a subsequent affidavit, Upadhyay alleged that UP Police personnel had entered the residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri while searching for him an episode he contends, when read with other police actions, calls for judicial scrutiny into whether investigative powers are being exercised selectively.

Case: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026