SC Quashes Ghaziabad Police Notice to X, Bars Use of Data Against Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Police to social media platform X seeking extensive personal and digital information linked to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s account, and directed that any personal information obtained under the notice shall not be used against him.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi quashed the notice issued on August 22 under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court also made absolute its earlier interim orders protecting Upadhyay from arrest and other coercive action, subject to his cooperation with the investigation.

The Bench further directed the authorities to release Upadhyay’s seized vehicle forthwith, and in any case within two days.

The case stems from an FIR registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police against Upadhyay over an alleged road-rage incident in Ghaziabad. The journalist had approached the apex court seeking protection from coercive action, claiming that the criminal proceedings were retaliatory in nature and linked to his reporting on alleged irregularities in the Ram Mandir Trust and corruption in the Uttar Pradesh administration.

His plea also raised concerns over the alleged failure to preserve CCTV footage relating to the incident.

Through its notice to X, the Uttar Pradesh Police had sought a broad range of information linked to Upadhyay’s account, including login and logout Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, an alternative email address, mobile number, location coordinates, device details, International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, registration information and IP logs for the period from June 1 to August 22, 2026.

During the proceedings, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, filed an affidavit stating that the information had been sought to trace the journalist following the registration of the FIR and to facilitate the investigation.

However, the Supreme Court held that confidential or personal information could not be sought for a period preceding the relevant occurrence. It further observed that even information relating to the period after the FIR could not be obtained without first examining whether alternative investigative measures were inadequate.

Emphasising the principle of proportionality in criminal investigations, the CJI-led Bench noted that the authorities had not explained why less intrusive measures would be insufficient to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

The court underscored that investigators must consider less intrusive alternatives before resorting to measures involving the collection of extensive personal and digital information.

During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi also observed that seeking personal and digital information spanning such a lengthy period appeared to be an “overkill”.

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the FIR registered against Upadhyay. It left the journalist at liberty to challenge the criminal proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in accordance with law.

The Bench’s order also made absolute the earlier interim protection granted to Upadhyay against arrest and other coercive measures, subject to his cooperation with the investigation.

On August 25, the Supreme Court had granted him interim protection, issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and directed the police to provide him with a copy of the FIR. The protection was subsequently extended during further proceedings.

With the latest order, the court has set aside the police notice to X and expressly barred the use of any personal information obtained pursuant to it against the journalist.