Photo: Pinakpani / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a Ghaziabad Police notice that asked social media platform X to hand over digital records of independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay covering a period months before an alleged road-rage case, holding that investigative agencies cannot use such demands for a roving inquiry into personal data in breach of the right to privacy.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also made absolute earlier interim orders that protected Mr. Upadhyay from arrest, stayed coercive action linked to the road-rage FIR and any subsequent FIRs, and directed the police to return his seized vehicle within two days.
Notice termed an “overkill”
According to court coverage, the August notice to X sought detailed digital footprints of Mr. Upadhyay from early June, after a road-rage FIR was registered against him in mid-August. The Ghaziabad Police Commissioner told the court that officers had searched for the journalist for three days and sought the platform data to help trace him.
The Bench found that explanation “somewhat in contradiction” with what the notice itself demanded, and called the request an “overkill”. It said confidential personal information could not be obtained for the period before the alleged incident, and that even after an FIR, digital data could be sought only if principles of proportionality were followed and less intrusive methods had proved inadequate.
Information and Technology Act provisions cannot be misused by police to launch a roving and fishing inquiry by obtaining personal data of an accused in breach of right to privacy.
Supreme Court Bench, as reported
Ayodhya donation stories and the journalist’s case
Mr. Upadhyay had published investigative online reports in June alleging misappropriation and theft of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Temple. Through counsel, he told the court that the road-rage case was “staged” and that the real purpose of seeking data from June was to identify sources connected to that reporting.
The court did not rule on the merits of the road-rage allegations. It noted that a copy of the FIR had been supplied to him, allowed him to challenge the FIR on any grounds, and said any personal information already obtained under the quashed notice must not be used against him.
Why the order matters
The ruling sets a clear limit on how far police can reach into a person’s digital life when investigating an ordinary alleged street offence. By tying social-media data requests to proportionality and the exhaustion of other investigative steps, the Bench signalled that privacy and journalistic source protection cannot be brushed aside under the cover of a fishing expedition.
The judges also granted Mr. Upadhyay liberty to file a separate petition seeking broader guidelines on collecting personal digital information during criminal probes and on safeguards for investigative journalism, observing that unchecked police access could chill reporting.
What happens next
Protection from arrest remains in force while Mr. Upadhyay cooperates with the investigation. Ghaziabad Police must return his vehicle within the two-day deadline and cannot rely on material gathered under the cancelled X notice. Any wider privacy guidelines will depend on a fresh petition in an appropriate court.
