"What Information Sought From X About Abhishek Upadhyaya?" Supreme Court Asks Ghaziabad Police
Upadhyay has told court that his digital information may enable the Police to identify, trace and map the persons who communicated with him, provided information or evidence to him in confidence in connection with his journalistic work and harass and harm them through the state machinery.
Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay approached the Supreme Court challenging the Ghaziabad FIR and seeking protection from arrest
The Supreme Court today sought the Ghaziabad Police's response on affidavit clarifying as to what kind of information has been asked for from X concerning Abhishek Upadhaya and what information is required to take the investigation against him in the road rage case to logical end.
Upadhyay has moved Supreme Court of India to restrain the Ghaziabad Police from seeking, obtaining, accessing, processing or disclosing any information, including the digital/account information of his X account @upadhyayabhii.
He is accused in a road rage case which he alleged to be a fabricated one in retaliation for his investigative reporting on alleged irregularities concerning the Ram Mandir.
As the matter was taken up, court was told by the state's counsel, "In the name of journalism..it cuts both ways..everyone is blemished and he is holier than thou..if we find no evidence we will definitely file a closure report..".
Justice Bagchi expressed concerns over the request made to X and said, "This digital footprint requisition, you will have a lot of personal information about a person.."
"Commissioner, Ghaziabad, to file an affidavit clarifying as to what kind of information is required to be furnished by X for the purpose of investigation of the subject FIR or any other FIR registered earlier against the petitioner. However, no such information must be brought in the public domain. Petitioner has volunteered to assist police authority for completion of investigation into the road rage case,” court has ordered.
Last week, a mentioning was made before a CJI Surya Kant led bench wherein Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi stated, "The Ghaziabad Police has sought my digital footprint from June 1, 2026 in connection to the road rage case..that is when I broke the Ram Mandir donations theft story..all of the sources would be revealed and they would be harassed by the police..I have received information from the Meta office from California that they have sought my digital footprint..I have filed an application..".
Upadhyay's application seeks ad-interim stay and quashing of a notice u/s 94 of BNSS dated 22 August, 2026 issued by crime branch unit, Police Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, UP. Upadhyay received an email from X from its legal department at San Francisco, California, informing him that X had received a request from the Crime Branch Investigation Unit, Ghaziabad, seeking production of information relating to the Petitioner’s X account @upadhyayabhii.
"The FIR concerns an alleged incident dated 18.08.2026, whereas the Investigating Agency seeks the Petitioner’s IP and account-related information commencing from 01.06.2026, i.e. for a period substantially preceding the alleged occurrence. No nexus between such sweeping historical digital information and the investigation of the alleged incident has been disclosed in the impugned notice....the timing of the impugned demand assumes particular significance. On 07.06.2026, the Petitioner, in the course of his investigative journalism, had reported material concerning irregularities and theft relating to donations associated with the Ram Temple. The period for which the Respondents now seek the Petitioner’s digital footprint substantially overlaps with the period during which the Petitioner was researching, investigating, communicating with sources and collecting information and material concerning the said report and persons who gave that information to the Petitioner," the application states.
Court has further been told that the demand for location data, device/IMEI details, alternate email addresses, mobile numbers and IP access logs is particularly intrusive and, cumulatively, has the potential to reconstruct his digital associations, contacts and movements over a period of nearly three months preceding the alleged occurrence. Such a sweeping demand cannot, in the absence of a demonstrated and proximate nexus with the alleged offence, be permitted merely by invoking the pendency of an investigation, he argues.
On August 25, the Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Upadhyay who had approached Court under Article 32 seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad and protection from arrest, alleging that the case was fabricated in retaliation for his investigative reporting on alleged irregularities in Uttar Pradesh. Court further directed the police to supply the copy of the registered FIR to Upadhyay adding that he can then approach the Allahabad High Court for seeking suitable reliefs. The Ghaziabad Police Commissioner has been asked to file a compliance report regarding the supply of the FIR by the next date of hearing.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana had earlier agreed to hear a writ petition filed by Upadhyay challenging the FIR. The petition challenges FIR No. 678/2026, registered at Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad, on August 18 in connection with an alleged road-rage incident near Shipra Mall. The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Information Technology Act.
The petition itself notes discrepancies between the sections reflected in different portions of the FIR record. Upadhyay, who runs the independent news portal “Top Secret”, has alleged that the FIR was lodged after he published investigative reports concerning alleged corruption and irregularities in Uttar Pradesh, including matters relating to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises and senior government officials.
Case Title: Abhishek Upadhyaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: September 1, 2026