The Supreme Court on Monday sought an explanation from the Ghaziabad police commissioner regarding the nature of information sought from the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, in connection with cases registered against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who has reported allegations of the theft of donations to the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
A bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising justice Joymalya Bagchi and justice V Mohana directed the Ghaziabad police commissioner to file an affidavit clarifying what information the police wanted from X and whether it was required for the investigation of the road-rage first information report (FIR) against Mr Upadhyay or any of the other FIRs registered against him.
The Court also made it clear that any such information should not be placed in the public domain.
The order came during the hearing of Mr Upadhyay’s challenge to the FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad over an alleged road-rage incident. He has also challenged a notice issued by the Uttar Pradesh (UP) police to X seeking information connected with his social media account.
The Court’s intervention centred on the scope of the police inquiry and the extent to which an investigating agency can access a person’s digital trail.
Justice Bagchi questioned the need for such an exercise in a case arising from an alleged road-rage incident. “We are on the width of the investigation... In a road rage case, why do you need digital footsteps of the accused?” the judge asked the state.
CJI Kant also flagged the privacy implications of accessing digital information, particularly where an investigation could expose confidential material.
“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,” the CJI observed.
Journalist Alleges Attempt to Access Sources
Senior counsel Pradeep Rai, appearing for Mr Upadhyay, told the Court that the police notice to X was far wider than what would ordinarily be necessary to investigate an alleged road-rage incident.
According to Mr Rai, the notice sought information relating to Mr Upadhyay’s social media account going back to 1st June, even though the FIR concerns an alleged incident on 18 August 2026. He also pointed to a request for information about the mobile device used to access the account.
Mr Rai argued that the breadth of the request raised concerns that the investigation could be used to uncover the journalist’s sources.
He urged the Court to consider establishing safeguards governing police access to social media and digital information, drawing a comparison with the safeguards prescribed by the Supreme Court in arrest-related cases.
“The investigating agencies have the impression that they must be more loyal than the king,” Rai said, arguing that there should be guidelines governing access to social media information and protection of digital rights.
The state, however, pushed back against the challenge and said the proceedings should not be used to shut down the investigation into the road-rage complaint.
The additional advocate general (AAG) of UP told the Court that a medico-legal case report recorded the injuries suffered by the complainant and, therefore, the allegations required investigation.
He also objected to what he described as ‘broad and sweeping’ allegations made by Mr Upadhyay in his petition, including claims concerning alleged corruption in the construction of the Ram temple.
The state counsel questioned whether such allegations against public officials should be made without supporting evidence and also criticised what he described as a ‘holier than thou’ approach towards the authorities.
The AAG said an eyewitness had given a statement supporting the complaint and argued that if the allegations ultimately turned out to be baseless, the investigation could conclude with a closure report.
Court Focuses on Limits of Digital Investigation
The bench, however, appeared particularly concerned with the extent of the police request for digital information.
The issue before the Court was not merely whether the police could investigate the road-rage complaint, but how far that investigation could extend into the accused's digital activities.
The commissioner has now been asked to specify precisely what information the police require from X and to identify whether the request relates to the subject FIR or another FIR previously registered against Upadhyay.
The Court directed that the information sought should not be disclosed publicly.
Mr Upadhyay, through his counsel, also offered to cooperate with the police investigation into the road-rage case.
The state informed the bench that two other FIRs had also been registered against the journalist. Mr Rai said he was willing to engage with the AAG on the issue and reiterated that Mr Upadhyay would cooperate with the investigation.
Arrest Protection Already in Place
The latest proceedings follow an order of 25 August 2026 in which the Supreme Court granted Mr Upadhyay protection from coercive action in the road-rage case and sought the UP government’s response to his plea challenging the FIR.
The FIR was registered on 18 August 2026 following a complaint by a two-wheeler rider who alleged that Mr Upadhyay’s vehicle hit his vehicle from behind and that the journalist subsequently threatened and abused him. The case invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Mr Upadhyay has denied the allegations and claimed that the case was a retaliatory action linked to his investigative reporting.
At the August hearing, Mr Rai had told the Court that his client had been targeted after publishing reports concerning the Ram Mandir Trust and alleged corruption in the UP administration. Mr Upadhyay has maintained that the road-rage allegation was fabricated and sought a fair investigation.
The Supreme Court had directed the police to provide him with a copy of the FIR and ordered that no coercive action be taken against him in the case or any other FIR that, to the Court’s knowledge, might be registered against him.
Mr Upadhyay has also raised questions over CCTV footage relating to the alleged road-rage incident. His plea claimed that he had asked journalist colleagues to check nearby establishments for footage but subsequently learnt that police personnel had approached some establishments and allegedly pressured them to delete or withhold relevant recordings. These are allegations made by Upadhyay and remain subject to investigation.
Separate Plea over Alleged Midnight Police Operation
The Supreme Court proceedings have also acquired another dimension following a separate plea by Delhi’s former mayor Farhad Suri.
Mr Suri approached the Court on 4 September 2026, alleging that a large Ghaziabad police team entered his Nizamuddin East residence in Delhi around 12.45am on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd August while looking for Mr Upadhyay.
Mr Suri has alleged that the police team was led by Ghaziabad ACP Suryabali Maurya, who is also the investigating officer in Mr Upadhyay’s road-rage case.
According to Mr Suri’s plea, the police initially told him they were looking for a person wanted in a double-murder case registered in Indirapuram. When he asked to see a search warrant, the police allegedly failed to produce one.
Mr Suri has further claimed that he later contacted the local Hazrat Nizamuddin police station and was told that the Delhi police had only been informed of a visit by a UP police team to Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station, and not of a search of his residence.
The plea alleges that Mr Suri, subsequently, learnt that the Ghaziabad team had actually come in connection with FIR no678/2026 registered at Indirapuram—the same FIR that names Mr Upadhyay in the road-rage case.
Mr Suri has sought an independent investigation into the alleged operation, including an examination of CCTV footage, call detail records, wireless communications, vehicle records, and other electronic evidence. He has also sought identification of the police personnel and other individuals allegedly involved.
According to his plea, complaints submitted to the Delhi Police on 23 August 2026 seeking registration of an FIR have not led to the registration of a case. Mr Suri has also approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
He has sought guidelines for inter-state police operations, particularly searches of residential premises, including requirements relating to prior communication with the local police, approval from the competent authority, production and verification of warrants, identification of police personnel and preservation of electronic evidence.
The allegations in Mr Suri’s plea have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
After birthing the origin of a political movement as a result of his insensitive remarks, he now appears to recognize how justice has been subverted in India by Modi/Shah through intimidation.