Introduction
Abhishek Upadhyay, a journalist who reported on the alleged theft of donations for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, has petitioned the Supreme Court of India. His plea challenges the Ghaziabad Police’s request to obtain his social media activity records from X (formerly known as Twitter). This comes amid ongoing legal proceedings where Upadhyay alleges retaliation for his investigative work.
Background
Upadhyay’s legal counsel presented the case before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The journalist was previously granted protection from arrest in connection with a road rage incident, which he claims was fabricated in response to his reports on the donation theft.
Details of Police Request
Advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi, representing Upadhyay, informed the court that the Ghaziabad Police requested X’s headquarters in California to provide a comprehensive digital footprint of Upadhyay starting June 1, 2026. Awasthi argued that this timeline predates the road rage incident, which occurred on August 18, and appears to coincide with the period Upadhyay was gathering information for his investigative report.
“The digital footprint request is unrelated to the road rage incident and seems aimed at exposing journalistic sources,” Awasthi asserted in court, stressing the potential threat to Upadhyay’s sources and the principle of press freedom.
Legal Proceedings and Allegations
The Supreme Court had earlier, on August 25, granted interim protection to Upadhyay in the road rage case. The FIR against him was filed following a complaint by a two-wheeler rider, who alleged that Upadhyay hit his vehicle and threatened him. Upadhyay’s petition contests the FIR, suggesting that it was prompted by his critical reporting on the Ram Mandir Trust and alleged corruption within the Uttar Pradesh administration.
Upadhyay recounts that during the alleged road rage incident, he was returning from picking up his daughter from school. He denies any confrontation, insisting he remained calm to avoid escalation. Furthermore, Upadhyay claims the situation was orchestrated by state machinery as a retaliatory measure.
Upon learning of the allegations, Upadhyay sought CCTV evidence from nearby establishments, only to discover that police had already directed some establishments to delete or withhold pertinent footage.
Current Status and Next Steps
The Supreme Court has requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh government regarding Upadhyay’s petition. The case is set for further hearing on September 7.
Stay tuned for updates as the Supreme Court addresses this significant issue concerning press freedom and the protection of journalistic sources.
