Journalist challenges police X data request in Supreme Court
Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has petitioned the Supreme Court against a Ghaziabad police notice seeking extensive data from his X account.
Independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Ghaziabad Crime Branch notice seeking extensive data from his X account. The notice is connected to an FIR over an alleged road-rage incident on August 18, 2026, but demands account and device information dating back to June 1.
Upadhyay runs the digital news platform 'Top Secret'. He was the first to report allegations of theft and irregularities involving donations at the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya. His reporting began in early June, with the first stories published on June 7.
The Police Notice and Its Timing
The Ghaziabad Crime Branch Investigation Unit issued the notice to X on August 22, 2026, under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). X informed Upadhyay of the request on August 26. The notice seeks a wide array of data from June 1 onwards.
Questioning the timing, Upadhyay noted that the police sought details starting from June 1 onwards, which was the very week in June when he broke the story about the Ram Temple. He asked why an investigation into an alleged road accident required his mobile details, logins, and digital footprints from months prior.
Upadhyay noted the demand came during the same period he was receiving information for his Ram Mandir reporting. This is the second FIR lodged against him. The Supreme Court will hear the case on September 7.
Data Sought by Authorities
The police notice requests the following information from the journalist's X account, dating from June 1, 2026:
Arguments in the Supreme Court Petition
The petition argues the police have not explained why a road-rage investigation requires three months of prior account data. It contends the requested period substantially overlaps with Upadhyay's investigation into alleged Ram Temple irregularities, when he was researching, communicating with sources, and collecting material.
It states the breadth of the request could allow authorities to identify, trace, and map people who communicated with Upadhyay, including confidential journalistic sources. The combination of location, device, IMEI, email, mobile, and IP data could reconstruct his digital associations, contacts, and movements.
The petition argues the notice implicates press freedom and the confidentiality of journalistic sources under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It says the request should be assessed for necessity, proportionality, and a rational nexus to the alleged offence. Disclosure could cause irreversible prejudice because confidential information, once shared with investigators, cannot subsequently be made private again.
Broader Context of Pressure on Journalists
At a MediaNama discussion on IT Rules and online speech in Delhi on April 23, independent digital journalists described a range of government interventions. These included content removals, demonetisation, notices, and investigations.
Neeraj Jha, Chief Editor of Molitics, noted the speed of takedowns, saying a video uploaded to Twitter was deleted within half an hour.
Haseen Rehmani, Founder of Bolta Hindustan, said more than 200 of his videos had been removed in six months, with content being restricted without any notice or hearing.
Ambuj Kumar, Editor of Lokhit India, described being summoned by the MIB's Inter-Departmental Committee over a video thumbnail, noting the irony that they had not even watched the whole video.
