Supreme Court orders UP police to justify X data request in journalist's road-rage case
The Supreme Court told the Ghaziabad police commissioner to explain why they asked X for details on journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s account in a road-rage FIR, which the reporter says is retaliation for his coverage of a temple-donation scandal.
On Monday the Supreme Court instructed the Ghaziabad police commissioner to file an affidavit explaining the scope of a notice sent to X seeking information on journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s account. Upadhyay’s counsel argued that the police request, which covers activity from June 1 and includes device-login data, is intended to identify his journalistic sources and intimidate him for reporting alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
The FIR, filed on August 18 after a two-wheeler rider’s complaint, accuses Upadhyay of hitting the rider’s vehicle and threatening him, invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Supreme Court had earlier granted Upadhyay protection from arrest and asked for preservation of security-camera footage that could exonerate him. During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked why the police needed the journalist’s “digital footsteps” in a road-rage case, while the Uttar Pradesh attorney general cited a medico-legal report of injuries. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted the court’s limited knowledge of the facts but recognized the journalist’s concerns.
Why it matters
The case highlights tensions between press freedom and law-enforcement powers in India.
How the sides frame it
LOW AGREEMENTLeft-leaning coverage frames the case as a potential abuse of police power to uncover a journalist’s sources and intimidate a whistleblower, while centrist coverage frames it as a broader tension between effective criminal investigation and privacy rights.
LEFT
The coverage portrays the Supreme Court order as a safeguard against police overreach aimed at exposing the journalist’s sources and silencing a whistleblower.
CENTER
The coverage presents the order as part of a needed balance between scientific investigative methods and individual privacy in the digital age.
The left emphasises
- the police request to X seeks device-login data dating back to June 1
- the request is intended to identify the journalist’s sources and intimidate him
- the journalist is described as a whistleblower on alleged Ram temple donation embezzlement
In this story
