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, holding that the authorities could not seek confidential or personal information relating to a period preceding the incident under investigation.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi also directed that any personal information obtained pursuant to the notice shall not be used against the journalist. The Court continued its interim protection against arrest and coercive action and ordered the release of his seized vehicle within two days.
The proceedings arose from an FIR registered in connection with an alleged road-rage incident on August 18, 2026. The allegations were that Upadhyay abused and threatened the complainant after his vehicle approached the latter’s motorcycle from behind, and made remarks after asking about the complainant’s name and caste. Upadhyay denied the allegations and claimed that the incident had been orchestrated in retaliation for his journalistic reporting.
The controversy subsequently extended to the police notice dated August 22, 2026, issued to X under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The notice sought a broad range of information associated with Upadhyay’s account, including login and logout IP addresses, alternative email address, mobile number, location coordinates, device particulars, IMEI number, registration details and IP logs for the period between June 1 and August 22, 2026.
Upadhyay challenged the breadth of the demand, arguing that it extended significantly beyond the date of the alleged incident and could compromise the confidentiality of his journalistic sources.
During the proceedings, the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, filed an affidavit stating that the information had been sought to trace the journalist following registration of the FIR and facilitate the investigation.
The Bench, however, noted an apparent inconsistency between the explanation furnished by the police commissioner and the contents of the notice issued to the platform.
“It may thus be seen that the explanation given by Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, in his affidavit that information was sought primarily to trace and arrest the petitioner is in somewhat contradiction with the contents of the notice dated 22nd August 2026,” the Court observed.
It added that confidential or personal information could not be obtained for a period preceding the relevant reference date.
The Bench also examined whether the demand for data complied with the principle of proportionality. It observed that the authorities had not explained why less intrusive investigative measures would be insufficient to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
“The principle of proportionality or proportional measures are applied and less intrusive measures available are not exercised and where the alternative measures to take the investigation to a logical conclusion are found to be inadequate. No such plea has been raised on behalf of the respondents,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the August 22 notice and directed that any personal information obtained pursuant to it must not be used against Upadhyay. It also made absolute its earlier interim orders dated August 25 and September 7, 2026, thereby continuing the protection against arrest and other coercive measures.
The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the FIR. Upadhyay was left at liberty to challenge the criminal proceedings before the competent High Court in accordance with law.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai also submitted that the journalist’s vehicle, seized during the investigation, had not been returned. The Supreme Court directed the authorities to release it forthwith and, in any event, within two days.
The issue of prescribing broader safeguards governing the collection of personal and private digital information during criminal investigations was also raised before the Bench. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court through a separate petition seeking guidelines on the subject.
The decision comes amid growing legal scrutiny of the extent to which investigating agencies can demand personal digital information and the safeguards required to protect privacy and journalistic confidentiality.
The post Supreme Court quashes UP police notice seeking journalist Abhishek Upadhyay’s digital data from X, orders release of seized vehicle appeared first on India Legal.