Back
Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay Moves Supreme Court Against Ghaziabad FIR in Road Rage Case
The has been moved by journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who first reported allegations of theft and mismanagement of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him by the over an alleged road rage incident. Upadhyay contends that the FIR is a fabricated and malicious attempt to harass him in retaliation for his investigative reporting on corruption in Uttar Pradesh. In his petition filed directly under , he has sought and, alternatively, a to an independent agency such as the or the .
Background: Investigative Journalism and Retaliation
Abhishek Upadhyay, a journalist known for his independent digital news platform, has been at the forefront of exposing alleged financial irregularities in the handling of donations for the Ram Temple construction in Ayodhya. His reports, published in , highlighted that a significant sum of donated money had gone missing, sparking a political and legal controversy. Since then, Upadhyay has faced a series of legal challenges. He had previously obtained protection from arrest from the Supreme Court in in connection with an FIR registered at , which he claimed was also linked to his reporting.
The current petition stems from an FIR dated , lodged at the in Ghaziabad. According to the complaint, a motorcyclist was allegedly struck by a Baleno car near Shipra Mall, and the driver — identified as Upadhyay — allegedly abused and threatened the complainant. Upadhyay has categorically denied the allegations, asserting that no collision or physical altercation occurred. He stated that while returning from his daughter’s school, a motorcycle-borne individual approached his car and created a commotion, but he left the spot immediately to avoid any escalation, as his young daughter was present.
The FIR and Alleged Incident
The petition highlights several glaring inconsistencies in the FIR. Upadhyay points out that although the complaint mentions a Splendor motorcycle, the registration number provided in the FIR belongs to an entirely different vehicle. He further alleges that police personnel visited shops near the alleged incident location and pressured shopkeepers to delete or withhold CCTV footage. “The Petitioner apprehends imminent arrest and further physical harm and states that, in view of the aforesaid sequence, he is not in a position to safely approach the ,” the plea states, explaining why Upadhyay chose to invoke the Supreme Court’s rather than seek relief from the .
In a separate incident, on , around ten to twelve police officers visited Upadhyay’s residence in Ghaziabad at 10:20 pm while he was in Delhi. His wife and two daughters were at home at the time. Upadhyay alleged that no female police officer accompanied the team, raising concerns about the propriety of the visit. He has also claimed that despite repeated requests, the complete FIR has not been supplied to him, and the document was not uploaded on the police website as mandated by the Supreme Court’s directions in the case. Instead, he was sent a truncated one-page link via WhatsApp in the early hours of , which did not mention the legal provisions invoked or provide details of the incident.
Legal Grounds: Quashing and Protection Sought
Upadhyay’s petition primarily seeks the under Article 32, arguing that the allegations are false and motivated by . He contends that the FIR constitutes an and is designed to . In the alternative, he has requested that the investigation be handed over to an independent agency, specifically the CBI or , citing a lack of trust in the . He has expressed willingness to cooperate with any lawful inquiry.
The petition also references the Supreme Court’s earlier order in , which granted him protection from arrest in the Lucknow FIR. Upadhyay fears that the current FIR is part of a pattern of retaliation aimed at discouraging his investigative work. “I broke the news of Ram Mandir theft on , since then, these complaints FIRs have become routine for me. I am exposing their corruption, that is their problem,” he told The Wire , adding that “in the garb of Hindu-Muslim politics, Uttar Pradesh is witnessing massive corruption in government departments.”
Discrepancies and Procedural Irregularities
Beyond the vehicle registration discrepancy, Upadhyay has highlighted other procedural lapses. He alleged that on , one day after the alleged incident, he published a report concerning allegations against an IAS officer involving agricultural plots worth crores and subsequent construction of a school. According to him, his YouTube video was removed within half an hour under provisions relating to bullying and harassment, only to be restored on after an overnight legal challenge. This timeline, he argues, suggests a coordinated effort to silence him.
Furthermore, Upadhyay claims that the police team that visited his home on did not provide him with a copy of the FIR at that time. Despite his requests, the full FIR was not disclosed until after he approached the Supreme Court. He also alleges that the police pressured shop owners near Shipra Mall to delete or withhold CCTV footage, effectively destroying potential . The petition urges the Apex Court to direct the preservation of all CCTV footage and other electronic evidence from the location.
Previous Legal History and Parallels
This is not the first time Upadhyay has sought judicial protection. In 2024, the Supreme Court had intervened in a similar matter from Lucknow, directing that no be taken against him. At that time, the Court had recognized the potential for misuse of against journalists. The current petition draws on this precedent, arguing that the Ghaziabad FIR is yet another instance of state machinery being weaponized to curb journalistic scrutiny.
Legal experts note that the petition raises important questions about the threshold for quashing FIRs under Article 32. While the Supreme Court generally discourages direct invocation of its jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available, it has entertained such pleas in cases involving or when the petitioner faces . Upadhyay’s assertion that he cannot safely approach the due to fear of arrest and physical harm by “planted goons of the state machinery” seeks to bring his case within this exceptional category.
Broader Implications for Press Freedom
The case has significant implications for the legal community and for press freedom in India. If the Supreme Court entertains the petition and grants relief, it could reinforce the principle that investigative journalists are entitled to robust protection against retaliatory FIRs. Conversely, a dismissal could embolden state authorities to use minor criminal complaints to silence critical reporting.
The petition also highlights the recurring issue of non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in the case, which mandates that FIRs be uploaded within 24 hours unless specific exemptions apply. Upadhyay’s allegation that the FIR was not uploaded and that a truncated version was provided raises concerns about transparency in police investigations.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court considers whether to entertain Upadhyay’s plea, the broader legal community will be watching closely. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts balance the state’s interest in investigating alleged offences against the . For now, Upadhyay remains in a precarious position, awaiting interim protection while continuing his reporting. His petition underscores the vulnerability of journalists who dare to expose corruption in powerful quarters, and the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional values.
