Back
to Hear Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's Plea Against Police Digital Footprint Demand
The on Tuesday agreed to examine a journalist’s urgent plea challenging a police demand for his entire digital footprint from social-media platform , in a case that raises fundamental questions about , , and the limits of investigative powers. The Court was hearing an application filed by Abhishek Upadhyay, an independent journalist who first reported on alleged donation theft at the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya, seeking to restrain the from obtaining his account information from .
Upadhyay had earlier approached the under , challenging a road-rage FIR registered against him on August 18 near Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. He alleged the FIR was a fabricated retaliation for his investigative reports on corruption and irregularities concerning the Ram Temple. On August 25, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant had granted him from arrest and directed the police to supply a copy of the FIR. But the latest development—a notice issued under () on August 22—has triggered a new legal battle over .
The Road Rage FIR and Its Aftermath
According to the FIR, complainant Nikki Gautam alleged that Upadhyay’s car hit his motorcycle from behind near Shipra Mall on August 18, and that the driver abused and threatened him. Upadhyay has categorically denied the allegations, claiming the incident was staged. He pointed to discrepancies such as the motorcycle registration number not matching the complainant’s vehicle, and alleged that police pressured nearby shopkeepers to delete or withhold CCTV footage.
In his petition before the , Upadhyay argued that the FIR was “concocted” and part of a pattern of harassment aimed at silencing his journalism. His reports, published through his independent news portal Top Secret , had exposed alleged irregularities in the handling of donations at the Ram Mandir. An investigation had already led to an FIR in Ayodhya on June 25. Upadhyay also published a report on August 19 concerning alleged land purchases by an IAS officer, which he says further provoked the authorities.
The ’s August 25 order had stayed against Upadhyay and directed the Commissioner to file a compliance report on supplying the FIR. The Court had also allowed him to approach the for of the FIR. But before that process could move forward, the of Ghaziabad issued the notice to , seeking Upadhyay’s digital records.
A Sweeping Data Demand
The impugned notice, issued under Section 94 of the , requires to produce login and logout IP addresses, alternate email IDs, mobile numbers, location data (including latitude and longitude), device and IMEI details, and IP access logs for Upadhyay’s account @upadhyayabhii. Crucially, the demand covers the period from —over two months before the alleged road-rage incident on August 18.
Upadhyay’s counsel, , told the CJI-led bench that ’s legal department in San Francisco had informed the journalist on August 26 that it had received the request and was notifying him to enable him to protect his interests. “The IO has sought my entire digital footprint from up till today, though the alleged road rage incident was of ,” Awasthi submitted. “That is the week when I collected evidence to break the story on Ram Janmabhoomi Temple theft. If that is disclosed, the entire source will be at the mercy of the state machinery and they will be harassed.”
The application argued that the notice has no nexus to the investigation because the data sought predates the incident by nearly three months. “The FIR concerns an alleged incident dated 18.08.2026, whereas the Investigating Agency seeks the Petitioner’s IP and account-related information commencing from 01.06.2026, i.e. for a period substantially preceding the alleged occurrence,” the plea states. It further contends that the cumulative data could enable investigators to reconstruct the journalist’s digital associations, contacts, and movements—effectively exposing his confidential sources.
on Journalistic Sources
The core of Upadhyay’s challenge lies in the protection of journalistic sources under of the Constitution. The plea asserts that unrestricted access to a journalist’s digital records would have a “” on potential sources, particularly in matters of public interest like the temple donation probe. “The timing of the impugned demand assumes particular significance,” the application notes. On , Upadhyay had published his first report on irregularities and theft at the Ram Temple. The data sought overlaps entirely with the period he was researching, communicating with sources, and collecting evidence.
Awasthi highlighted this before the bench: “On , I collected evidence to break the story on Ram Janmabhoomi Temple theft. If that is disclosed, entire source will be at mercy of state machinery.” He argued that the police demand is “disproportionately broad” and that the investigating agency has not demonstrated any proximate nexus between the historical digital information and the alleged road-rage incident. The plea seeks and of the August 22 notice.
Court’s Measured Response
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, heard the mention during Tuesday’s proceedings. Chief Justice Surya Kant initially appeared hesitant, asking, “What is the problem? We already protected you. They are investigating a matter. Let them investigate.” However, after Awasthi pressed the urgency, noting that the data request could soon be complied with by , the CJI said, “We will see.” Justice Mohana added, “Just file it,” indicating the Court would consider the application in due course.
The Court’s earlier order of August 25 had already restrained the police from taking against Upadhyay in the road-rage FIR. That order also directed the supply of the FIR and asked the journalist to seek appropriate relief before the . The new application adds a layer of complexity, as it directly challenges the legality of a notice that may implicate .
Legal Implications for and
This case presents a significant test of the boundaries between legitimate police investigation and the protecting journalists and their sources. The has in the past recognized the importance of , most notably in and decisions on the under Puttaswamy . Here, the demand for digital location data, IP logs, and device details over an extended period goes beyond what is ordinarily required to investigate a simple road-rage incident.
The plea underscores a growing tension: police requests for data from social-media platforms are increasingly common, but when they target journalists, the risk of exposing sources—and thereby chilling investigative reporting—becomes acute. The , which replaced the , contains provisions for production of electronic records, but courts have consistently held that such requests must be and directly relevant to the offence.
If the stays the notice, it could reinforce the principle that journalists cannot be compelled to disclose their sources except in the most . Conversely, if the police are allowed to proceed, it might embolden other authorities to use criminal investigations as a pretext to uncover journalists’ contacts. The case also raises questions about the role of global platforms like in handling Indian law enforcement requests and notifying users—a practice that is not uniformly followed.
Conclusion
The ’s next hearing on September 7 will likely determine the interim fate of the notice. Upadhyay has sought not only a stay but also a direction that any investigation related to his reporting on the Ram Mandir donations be transferred to an independent agency like the or the . Meanwhile, the have been asked to file a compliance report on supplying the FIR. For the legal fraternity, this case is a vital reminder of the need to balance with —especially the and the in the digital age.
