'Overkill': Supreme Court Quashes UP Police Notice To 'X' Seeking Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's Digital Data In Road-Rage Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 14) quashed UP Police notice to social media platform 'X' seeking journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's digital data in a road-rage case for a period approximately 3 months prior to the incident. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, with Justice Bagchi observing that seeking of personal or digital information for such a period seemed to be an 'overkill'. It said that any information collected pursuant to the 'X' notice shall not be utilized against Upadhyay. 

Even post-FIR, information could not be sought unless alternative measures to trace or arrest an accused were found inadequate, the Court observed. 

“We are on manner of exercise of the rule. Seizing data of 3 months prior to date of alleged incident seems to be an overkill…”, Justice Bagchi remarked during the hearing. 

Upadhyay, an investigative journalist who had reported on alleged misappropriation of donations at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, faces allegations of hitting a motorcyclist with his car near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad, threatening the complainant and making casteist remarks. He has denied the allegations and claimed that the incident was staged in retaliation for his reporting. 

Upadhyay approached the Supreme Court challenging the FIR registered at Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad. On August 25, the Court granted him interim protection from coercive action and directed that a copy of the FIR be supplied to him, enabling him to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

Pursuant to the explanation sought by the Court from the Police about why information about Upadhyay's  X account was needed in the road rage FIR, the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner told the Court that the notice to X was intended to trace the journalist and facilitate his arrest and investigation. The Court, however, noted that this explanation was somewhat inconsistent with the notice's contents (which sought his login and logout IP addresses, email ID, IMEI number, registration logs, etc.).

“It may be seen that explanation given by Commissioner of Police in his affidavit that information was sought primarily to trace/arrest petitioner was in somewhat contradiction with the contents of notice issued to X. Be that as it may, no confidential or personal information can be obtained prior to date of occurrence. Even with respect to information post the FIR, cannot be sought unless alternative measures are found to be inadequate.”, the Court said.

While quashing the notice issued by local police to X, the Court ordered that “any information taken pursuant thereto or otherwise shall not be utilized against the petitioner.”

The Court also made absolute its interim protection against coercive action, subject to Upadhyay's cooperation with the investigation. It clarified that he could challenge the FIR before the competent High Court and that no opinion had been expressed on the contents of the FIR.

As the journalist's vehicle had been seized, the Court directed its release forthwith, and no later than two days. Regarding the laying down of guidelines governing the collection of personal and digital data during investigations, the Chief Justice said that it could be considered in an appropriate petition. Liberty was given to approach a court of competent jurisdiction. 

Appearance: Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai and Advocate Anoop Kumar Awasthi for Upadhyay