The Supreme Court on Monday sought clarification from the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner regarding the basis for issuing a notice to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) seeking information linked to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s account, in connection with an FIR filed against him over an alleged road-rage incident.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing Upadhyay’s criminal writ petition challenging the FIR registered by the Ghaziabad Police. The petitioner had also challenged a notice issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police to X, demanding details about his social media activity, including login information and device usage, allegedly tracing back to June 1, despite the alleged road-rage incident occurring on August 18.
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the notice issued by the police was overly broad in scope and amounted to a fishing expedition aimed at uncovering the journalist’s sources. He argued that such investigative practices lacked procedural safeguards and urged the formulation of guidelines akin to the DK Basu norms for arrests, emphasizing the need to protect digital rights during investigations.
The bench echoed these concerns during the hearing. Justice Bagchi specifically questioned the State, asking, “We are on the width of the investigation… In a road rage case, why do you need digital footsteps of the accused?” This query underscored the court’s skepticism about the relevance and proportionality of seeking extensive digital data in a case ostensibly centered on a traffic altercation.
The Additional Advocate General representing Uttar Pradesh countered that the petition was essentially an attempt to quash the FIR and highlighted the existence of a Medico Legal Case report indicating injuries sustained by the complainant, which, in his submission, justified the investigation. He further alleged that the petitioner had made unsubstantiated and sweeping allegations, including claims that a government engineer was receiving a 40% cut in temple construction contracts, and accused Upadhyay of adopting a “holier than thou” attitude while damaging the reputations of public officials without evidence.
In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant raised concerns about the potential misuse of digital footprint data, stating, “Only thing is whatever the digital footprint… going into that, what should be the limits and guidelines… suppose you are able to lay hands on confidential information, and put on record… that impacts privacy.” He emphasized the need to balance investigative authority with the right to privacy, particularly when sensitive personal data could be accessed and disclosed.
The Additional Advocate General undertook to seek instructions from the police regarding the notice and informed the court that there are two additional FIRs registered against the journalist. Senior Advocate Rai responded by expressing willingness to engage in discussions with the State to address the issues and reiterated the petitioner’s offer to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation into the road-rage incident.
The court, in its order, directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to file an affidavit clarifying the specific nature of the information sought from X and the purpose for which it is required in relation to the subject FIR or any other FIR previously registered against the petitioner. The bench added a rider that no such information obtained should be placed in the public domain.
It further noted that the petitioner had volunteered to assist the police in completing the investigation into the road-rage case. The bench had previously granted interim protection to Upadhyay from coercive action and had directed the police to provide him with a copy of the FIR.
In a separate affidavit filed last month, Upadhyay alleged that Uttar Pradesh police had conducted a search at the residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri in an attempt to locate him, which he contended, when viewed alongside other actions against him, indicates a pattern of selective or disproportionate use of investigative powers warranting judicial scrutiny.
The case is registered as Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026.