Supreme Court questions why UP Police sought journalist’s digital data in road survey

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 7, 2026) asked the Uttar Pradesh police why it needed the digital trail of Abhishek Upadhyay, a freelance journalist who flagged the alleged misappropriation of donations to the Ayodhya Ram temple, to investigate the road violence case registered against him.

“Why would you require digital footprints of the accused in the case of road violence?” asked a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit detailing the information sought from social media platform X to probe the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Mr. Upadhyay.

Also read | The journalist told the SC that the UP police is looking for a digital trail to dig up the sources of his Ram Temple donation case

“The Commissioner of Ghaziabad may file an affidavit clarifying what kind of information X, formerly Twitter, has to provide for the purpose of investigating the FIR or any other FIR registered earlier against the petitioner. However, no such information shall be disclosed until further orders,” the Bench said. It also ordered Mr Upadhyay to cooperate with the police in the investigation.

Request

The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by Mr. Upadhyay seeking quashing of the road fight FIR or alternatively handing over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He alleged that the FIR was based on fabricated allegations and was registered to harass him for his journalistic work.

Mr Upadhyay subsequently filed an application in the Supreme Court alleging that the Uttar Pradesh Police is seeking details of his digital activity dated up to June 1, 2026, in an attempt to identify his sources.

Also read | The Supreme Court has barred the UP police from taking enforcement action against a journalist who flagged the Ram Temple embezzlements

On Monday (September 7, 2026), senior advocate Pradeep Rai, who appeared for Mr Upadhyay, argued that due process must be followed by the investigating agencies when seeking the accused’s digital information. He said the Uttar Pradesh police had sought data from social media intermediaries, including YouTube and X, covering a period well after the date of the alleged offence. This included Mr Upadhyay’s International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, which uniquely identifies a mobile device.

“The whole problem is that the investigating agencies give the impression that they are more loyal than the king… They wrote X to seek details, including my IMEI number, not just for one day but for the last year,” Mr Rai said.

New instructions were sought

The senior counsel urged the Bench to frame guidelines on the extent of digital information that investigating authorities could search for, while ensuring an accused person’s right to privacy and fair trial. Referring to the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court for arrested persons in DK Basu Vs. The State of West Bengal (1996) has argued that similar protections are needed to manage investigations in the digital age.

“After DK Basu, this is an opportunity to issue proper guidelines… Digital rights need to be protected. Most of the information is now searchable over the internet,” said Mr. Rai.

Acknowledging the concerns, the Chief Justice said that technological advancements posed new challenges to criminal investigations and that a balance needed to be struck between protecting the rights of the accused and enabling investigating authorities to carry out effective investigations.

“Advancement in technology brings very complicated challenges… If the investigating agencies do not use scientific methods of investigation, the courts will say that the investigation is very bad… The victim will also blame them for not investigating and say that their rights are being violated… Some balance needs to be struck somewhere,” the Chief Justice said.

“Sweeping Accusations”

The counsel for the Uttar Pradesh police said they would seek instructions as to why digital information of this nature was required for the investigation. However, he disputed the “sweeping allegations” leveled by Mr. Upadhyay against an engineer associated with the construction of the Ram temple.

“They are talking about regulating the police. What about the regulation of this kind of journalism? Please look at the nature of this gentleman’s allegation that an engineer was given a 40% commission in connection with the construction of a temple. These kinds of sweeping statements… are actually smearing and smearing people without any evidence. Is this fair?” he asked.

However, the counsel assured the court that if no incriminating material was found against Mr. Upadhyay, the police would file a closure report.

The Chief Justice then pointed out that access to the accused’s confidential information could interfere with their right to privacy, but said it could be allowed if specific information was required to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

“You file an affidavit (explaining) how information is required from X and what information is required to take the investigation to its logical conclusion,” the chief justice told the defense before the police authorities.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed the Ghaziabad police to provide a copy of the FIR and CCTV footage of the road incident to Mr Upadhyay. It also protected him from arrest and allowed him to approach the appropriate High Court for further relief.

The FIR claims that Mr. Upadhyay’s SUV hit the two-wheeler, after which he allegedly hurled casteist abuse at the scooter rider.

Published – 07 Sep 2026 21:53 IST