The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining what information is sought to be obtained from the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) in connection with the FIRs against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft allegations.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing dealing with Upadhyay's plea challenging Ghaziabad Police's FIR against him over an alleged road-rage incident. In the petition, he recently filed an application challenging a notice issued by the UP Police to 'X' seeking information regarding his social media account.

The bench directed the police to explain what the information regarding his social media account was sought in connection with the road-rage FIR or any other FIR.

The following order was passed after the hearing :

"Commissioner, Ghaziabad to file affidavit clarifying as to what kind of information is required to be furnished by X for the purpose of investigation of 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."

Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, for the petitioner, contended that the UP Police notice sought was broad in its ambit, seeking information regarding his social media account dating back to June 1, although the FIR is over an alleged incident of August 18. Even details regarding the mobile device used to log in to the account have been sought. Contending that it was an attempt to fish out information regarding the petitioner's journalistic sources, Rai advanced the need for guidelines.

"The investigating agencies have the impression that they must be more loyal than the king...there has to be guidelines on accessing social media information, like the DK Basu guidelines for arrest...the digital rights must be protected.."

UP Additional Advocate General submitted that the petition was essentially seeking quashing of the FIR, and there was a Medico Legal Case report showing injuries on the complainant, which warranted investigation.

Justice Bagchi then asked the State, "We are on the width of the investigation...In a road rage case, why do you need digital footsteps of the accused?".

The Addl AG said that the petitioner's allegations have not been stated on affidavit. He also contended that the petitioner was making "broad and sweeping" statements in his petition, such as that a government engineer was taking a 40% cut for temple construction. He said that the petitioner was following a "holier than thou" attitude and was blemishing all authorities. "You are blemishing people without any evidence on record. Is that fair? He names the engineer. What happens to the reputation of this man? If he is talking about regulation of police, what about regulation of journalism? Half a dozen averments on the footprint. Should there be media trial about everyone under the sun? Whether this case is staged is a matter of investigation. Eye-witness has given statement that he saw this. If there is nothing, a closure report will be filed," the AAG said.

The CJI also raised questions about the inquiry on digital footprints. "Only thing is whatever the digital footprint...going into that, what should be the limits and guidelines...suppose you are able to lay hands on confidential information, and put on record...that impacts privacy"

The AAG agreed to get instructions from the Police regarding the notice and informed that there are two other FIRs against the journalist. Rai said that he was willing to sit with the AAG to discuss the issue and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Last month, the Court granted him interim protection from coercive action, while asking the police to provide him a copy of the FIR.

In a recent affidavit, Upadhyay claimed that UP police entered the residence of ex-Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri in search for him. He argued that the alleged Delhi operation, viewed alongside the other police actions against him, warrants judicial scrutiny into whether investigative powers have been used selectively or disproportionately.

Case: ABHISHEK UPADHYAY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026