SC sets aside UP police order to trace journo’s digital footprint

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a directive by the Uttar Pradesh Police seeking digital footprints from June onwards of a journalist, who exposed the Ayodhya Ram Temple donation theft, while investigating an alleged road rage case against him registered on August 18.

Terming the order issued by the Ghaziabad police to social media intermediary ‘X’ on August 22 as an “overkill”, the court noted from the response filed by Ghaziabad Commissioner of Police that information was sought from ‘X’ to know the whereabouts of journalist Abhishek Upadhyay who remained untraced following the registration of the first information report (FIR).

Questioning how past social media activity is relevant for investigating a road rage case, the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “You were asking the service provider for data from June 1, 2026 till August 22 for a road rage that took place on August 18…that appears to be an overkill.”

The bench held, “The notice of August 22 issued by the local police to the nodal officer of ‘X’ is quashed. No confidential personal information of the petitioner can be taken which is prior to August 22. Even post-FIR, information cannot be sought unless it is shown to be proportional and that alternate measures of investigation were found to be inadequate. No such plea has been raised by the respondent (UP police).”

Since the court had already protected Upadhyay from arrest or coercive action in connection with the road rage incident, the bench allowed him to challenge the FIR before the appropriate court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations. However, it directed the police, “Any information collected for the period prior to August 22 shall not be used against the petitioner.” Further, it said, “The arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed until further orders.” The court further directed the police to release his vehicle involved in the alleged road rage case latest within two days.

The court, while disposing the matter, made relevant observations about the need for guidelines to ensure privacy and confidentiality of personal data of citizens is secured in the event investigating agencies seek disclosure of such data as part of their investigation into cases lodged against such persons.

Raising a pertinent concern, the bench said, “Something needs to be seen that in the guise of investigation, no roving and fishing enquiry is made into one’s personal information.” Permitting the petitioner to raise the issue of framing guidelines in this regard before a competent court, the court said, “Guidelines are needed. We do not want guidelines to be misused but if we give complete liberty to the police, the right of investigative journalists can also be affected.”

Additional advocate general (AAG) Sharan Dev Singh Thakur appearing for UP government informed the court that under the IT Intermediary Rules 2021, the police is empowered to seek “any” information and it was in exercise of this power, the police sought information.

The court said, “We are not on whether you have the power under the 2021 Rules but on the manner of implementing the rule. The petitioner had other activities which he says may be damaging to the state. You may injunct your agency (UP police) from collecting any data prior to the date of incident.” The observations of the court were relevant as Upadhyay had published a series of reports in June on alleged donation theft at Ayodhya Ram Temple.

Senior advocate Pradeep Rai appearing for Upadhyay said the petition raises a larger issue of whether the private, confidential information of a person can be utilised by the police under the garb of an investigation. He initially urged the court to expand the scope of this petition by laying down guidelines but later agreed to file a fresh petition in this regard. He said that the alleged road rage case was a “concocted story” to target the petitioner for his investigative stories.

Upadhyay had sought quashing of the FIR and in the alternate, transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as CBI or to another state such as Delhi police. His plea stated, “He apprehends that he may be arrested or subjected to physical harm by planted goons of the state machinery in the state of Uttar Pradesh before he can obtain effective judicial protection.”

Upadhyay runs a YouTube channel and had claimed that a police team visited his residence on August 20 and apprised him about the criminal case against him on allegations of road rage and abusive behaviour. The alleged incident took place on August 18 near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad when a motorcyclist brushed his car. The FIR stated that the man accused Upadhyay of hurling abuses and caste slur against him.