Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, the reporter who first disclosed the alleged theft of donations intended for the Ayodhya Ram temple, has filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India seeking an immediate stay on a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Crime Branch. The notice, dated August 22, demands that the social‑media platform X provide a wide array of digital information linked to Upadhyay’s X handle, @upadhyayabhii.
Background of the police notice
The demand was sent under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the Crime Branch Investigation Unit in Ghaziabad. X’s legal department informed Upadhyay on August 26 that it had received the request and was notifying him so that he could take appropriate legal steps. The request seeks login and logout IP addresses, an alternate email ID, mobile number, precise location data (latitude and longitude), device details including IMEI number, as well as name, address, phone number and full registration logs.
According to the petition, the police are asking for records dating back to June 1, even though the FIR that triggered the investigation concerns a road‑rage incident that occurred on August 18, 2026. Upadhyay’s counsel, Advocate Anoop Kumar Awasthi, argued that the data request is “disproportionately broad” and extends well before the alleged incident.
Supreme Court hearing
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court had stayed any coercive action against Upadhyay in connection with the FIR. In the current hearing, Awasthi reiterated that the police’s demand could expose individuals who communicated with the journalist while he was gathering evidence for the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple donation theft story. He warned that disclosure of the requested information would place his sources at the mercy of state machinery and could lead to their harassment.
The Chief Justice of India questioned the necessity of the extensive data pull, noting that the petitioner already enjoys interim protection. “What is the problem? We already protected you. They are investigating a matter. Let them investigate,” the Chief Justice remarked. Justice V Mohana responded, “Just file it,” while the Chief Justice added, “We will see.” Awasthi pressed for an urgent listing of the application, seeking an ex‑parte interim stay that would restrain the authorities from seeking, obtaining, processing or disclosing any of the requested information.
Legal arguments on press freedom
The petition frames the issue as one of constitutional importance, invoking Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Upadhyay contends that unrestricted access to his digital records would have a chilling effect on the willingness of sources to provide information on matters of public interest, thereby undermining the press’s role as a watchdog.
Beyond personal privacy, the application stresses that the period covered by the data request coincides with Upadhyay’s investigative reporting on alleged irregularities and theft of donations meant for the Ram Temple. The petitioner fears that the police could reconstruct his digital associations, contacts and movements over several months, potentially revealing confidential sources who assisted him in that investigation.
In his written submission, Upadhyay highlighted that the police’s demand for data from June 1 onward is unrelated to the August 18 road‑rage incident. He noted that the week beginning June 1 was when he was actively collecting evidence for the temple donation story. “If that is disclosed, entire source will be at mercy of state machinery and they will be harassed. There is no connection,” Awasthi submitted on his behalf.
The case is formally recorded as ABHISHEK UPADHYAY versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026. The Supreme Court’s decision on the stay application will determine whether the police can proceed with the extensive data retrieval from X, and will set a precedent for how investigative journalists’ digital footprints are protected in India.
Legal experts watching the proceedings note that the outcome could influence future interactions between law‑enforcement agencies and media professionals, especially in high‑profile investigations that involve sensitive sources. A ruling that curtails the police’s request may reinforce safeguards for journalistic sources, while a decision allowing the data pull could broaden the scope of state surveillance over the press.
As the petition awaits an urgent listing, Upadhyay remains under the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court. The case underscores the tension between investigative journalism, digital privacy, and law‑enforcement powers in a rapidly digitising media environment.
Be First to Comment