Back
Supreme Court Grants to Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay Over Road-Rage FIR
The on Monday passed an staying by the against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with a registered over an alleged road-rage incident in Ghaziabad. In a significant move, the Court extended the protection to any future FIR that the police may register against him, while directing the police to supply a copy of the registered FIR to enable him to seek further relief from the .
Background: Investigative Reporting and Alleged Retaliation
Abhishek Upadhyay, an independent journalist, earned prominence for being among the first to report on the alleged donation theft at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. His subsequent investigative pieces exposed what he claims are widespread irregularities concerning the collection and management of funds meant for the temple construction. According to his petition, the FIR lodged on at the Indirapuram Police Station is a fabricated response to his journalism. Upadhyay’s counsel, , submitted before the bench that the “unpardonable sin” of his client was exposing the Ayodhya donation scam, and that multiple FIRs have been filed against him in a pattern of harassment.
The Road-Rage Incident: Conflicting Narratives
The FIR, registered on the complaint of an unnamed motorcyclist, alleges that a Baleno car driven by Upadhyay hit the complainant’s motorcycle near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad. The complainant claimed the driver abused and threatened him. Upadhyay vehemently denies any collision or physical confrontation. He states that on the day in question, while returning from his daughter’s school, a motorcyclist approached his car and created a commotion. He left the scene without engaging, as his daughter was present.
The journalist’s petition highlights several discrepancies. The motorcycle registration number mentioned in the FIR does not match the model (Splendor) alleged. Further, Upadhyay contends that CCTV footage from nearby shops would corroborate his account, but police personnel allegedly pressured shopkeepers to delete or withhold such evidence. He has also pointed out that despite his repeated requests, the full copy of the FIR was not supplied, nor was it uploaded on the police website as mandated by the Supreme Court’s direction in .
Urgency and Court Proceedings
The matter was mentioned before the Supreme Court on the previous day for urgent listing. Upadhyay’s counsel highlighted that the police had conducted a night raid on his residence on while he was away, leaving his wife and two daughters terrified. The next day, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana took up the .
argued that the FIR was based on baseless allegations and that an independent investigation – preferably by the – was necessary to ensure impartiality. He also stressed the need to preserve CCTV footage, which he claimed would exonerate his client.
The bench acknowledged the petitioner’s imminent apprehension due to multiple FIRs. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed, “We appreciate your imminent apprehension because of repeated FIRs, we don't know about the truth but we understand your apprehension. You approach the High Court, and if you can make out a case for , fine. Meanwhile we can give you .”
The Order: A Template for Protection Against Serial FIRs
The Court proceeded to dictate the order, which has significant implications for journalists and others facing multiple, potentially . The order states:
Issue notice. Returnable on . Meanwhile, no shall be taken against the petitioner in the FIR already registered or in such FIR that may be registered against him. Similarly, let a copy of the FIR No. ... registered at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, be supplied to the petitioner to enable him to avail remedy... As soon as copies of FIR received, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Allahabad HC. The , shall file a compliance report.
Key takeaways from the order include: - from arrest in the existing FIR . - Extension of the same protection to any future FIR that the may lodge against Upadhyay. This is a rare and powerful safeguard, effectively preventing the police from using successive FIRs to detain a person. - Mandatory supply of the FIR copy. Without the full FIR, a petitioner cannot effectively challenge the allegations. - Direction to approach the High Court once the FIR is supplied, maintaining the hierarchy of remedies.
Legal Implications: Balancing Investigative Journalism and Police Powers
The Supreme Court’s order underscores the constitutional right to life and personal liberty (), especially when a person claims that criminal proceedings are being used as a tool for harassment. By extending protection to yet-to-be-registered FIRs, the Court has effectively prevented the police from sidestepping the interim relief by simply filing a new case.
For legal practitioners, this order illustrates five important points:
-
Protection against serial FIRs: Courts can grant when a pattern of repeated FIRs suggests . This is particularly relevant for journalists, activists, and whistleblowers who may face multiple cases across jurisdictions.
-
Right to copy of the FIR: The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that an accused must be supplied a copy of the FIR promptly. This order reinforces that principle and provides teeth by requiring a compliance report from the Police Commissioner.
-
Interim relief before : The Court did not quash the FIR but granted while allowing the petitioner to seek from the High Court. This balances the need for investigation with the risk of arbitrary arrest.
-
Role of CCTV evidence: The Court’s concern for preservation of CCTV footage highlights the importance of digital evidence in criminal proceedings. Upadhyay’s claim that his version will be vindicated by footage underscores a trend where courts are increasingly relying on independent electronic evidence to assess allegations.
-
Independent investigation as alternative relief: The petitioner’s prayer for a CBI probe, though not granted, remains an option if the High Court finds the police investigation biased. The Supreme Court has left that door open.
Impact on the Legal Community and Journalism
This judgment comes at a time when several journalists in India have faced various criminal cases, often linked to their reportage. The sends a clear message that the courts will scrutinise allegations that appear to be linked to investigative work. It also provides a practical roadmap for counsel representing clients in similar predicaments: Seek covering future FIRs, demand supply of all case documents, and preserve electronic evidence.
The order is likely to be cited in numerous petitions where the accused argues that the FIR is part of a pattern of harassment. It also reinforces the importance of the Youth Bar Association directions regarding FIR uploads, and non-compliance may lead to .
Next Steps
The matter has been posted for further hearing on , 2026. By that date, the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner must file a compliance report regarding the supply of the FIR. Upadhyay is expected to approach the once he receives the copy. Meanwhile, the remains in force, effectively restraining the police from taking any against him in any FIR registered by the .
The outcome of this case will be closely watched by media organisations, legal rights groups, and criminal law practitioners, as it could set a precedent for handling multiple FIRs filed against individuals engaged in public-interest journalism.
