New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Police to social media platform X seeking extensive personal and digital information linked to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s account, who had alleged that the criminal case against him was a retaliation for his reporting on alleged irregularities in the Ram Mandir Trust and corruption in the Uttar Pradesh administration.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the notice issued by the Ghaziabad Police to X on August 22 under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and directed that any personal information obtained pursuant to the notice shall not be used against the journalist.
The apex court also made absolute its earlier interim orders protecting Upadhyay from arrest and other coercive action, subject to his cooperation with the investigation, and directed the authorities to release his seized vehicle forthwith, and no later than two days.
The case relates to an FIR registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police against Upadhyay over an alleged road-rage incident in Ghaziabad.
The journalist had approached the apex court seeking protection against coercive action, alleging that the criminal proceedings were a retaliatory measure against his investigative reporting. His plea also raised concerns over the alleged non-preservation of CCTV footage relating to the incident.
Through its notice to X, the Uttar Pradesh Police had sought a wide range of information linked to Upadhyay’s account, including login and logout Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, an alternative email address, mobile number, location coordinates, device particulars, International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, registration details and IP logs for the period between June 1 and August 22, 2026.
During the proceedings, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, filed an affidavit stating that the information had been sought to trace the journalist following registration of an FIR and facilitate the investigation. However, the apex court held that confidential or personal information could not be obtained for a period preceding the relevant occurrence and that even post-FIR information could not be sought without examining whether alternative investigative measures were inadequate.
Stressing the need for proportionality in criminal investigations, the CJI Kant-led Bench remarked that the authorities had not explained why less intrusive measures would be insufficient to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
The Supreme Court observed that the principle of proportionality required consideration of less intrusive alternatives before resorting to measures involving the collection of extensive personal and digital information.
Justice Bagchi also observed during the proceedings that seeking personal and digital information spanning such a period appeared to be an “overkill”. In its order, the top court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the FIR registered against Upadhyay and left him at liberty to challenge the criminal proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in accordance with law.
Earlier, on August 25, the Supreme Court had granted Upadhyay interim protection from coercive action, issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and directed the police to provide him with a copy of the FIR. The interim protection was subsequently extended during further proceedings.
(IANS)
