SC quashes UP police notice asking social media data of journalist who reported Ayodhya temple theft

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a directive by the Uttar Pradesh police seeking the digital footprints of a journalist

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a directive by the Uttar Pradesh police seeking the digital footprints of a journalist, had reported the alleged donation theft at the Ayodhya Ram Temple, from June onwards in connection with an alleged road rage case registered against him on August 18.

Terming the order issued by the Ghaziabad police to social media intermediary ‘X’ on August 22 an “overkill”, the court noted, based on the response filed by the Ghaziabad commissioner of police, that information had been sought from ‘X’ to trace journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who could not be located following the registration of the first information report (FIR).

Questioning how past social media activity was relevant to 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 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),” the bench held.

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.” It further said, “The arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed until further orders.” The court also directed the police to release his vehicle, which was involved in the alleged road rage case, within two days.

The court, while disposing of the matter, made observations about the need for guidelines to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of citizens’ personal data when investigating agencies seek its disclosure as part of investigations into cases registered against them.

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 the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the court that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the police was empowered to seek “any” information and that the request had been made in exercise of this power.

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 were significant as Upadhyay had published a series of reports in June on alleged donation theft at the Ayodhya Ram Temple.

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

Upadhyay had sought the quashing of the FIR or, alternatively, the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or to another police force, such as the 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.”