New Delhi: The Supreme Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police over its request for the digital and online activity of journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with a road-rage case.
The court questioned why such extensive digital information was needed to investigate what appeared to be a traffic-related dispute. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant asked the police to explain the reason for seeking the journalist’s digital footprints.
The court directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to submit an affidavit explaining why social media information and other digital data were required for the investigation. The court also ordered that the information should not be made public until further directions.
The case involves journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who had earlier reported allegations relating to the alleged mismanagement of funds connected with the Ayodhya Ram temple. Upadhyay has claimed that the road-rage case was filed against him to harass him because of his journalistic work.
According to the FIR, Upadhyay allegedly hit a two-wheeler with his SUV during a road incident. He is also accused of using caste-based abusive language against the scooter rider. The allegations are being investigated by the Uttar Pradesh Police.
Upadhyay has approached the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of the FIR or the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
During the hearing, his lawyer raised concerns about the amount of digital information being sought by the police. The lawyer said investigators were seeking around one year of digital data and argued that such a large amount of information was not necessary for investigating a road-rage incident.
The lawyer also asked the Supreme Court to consider creating guidelines for investigating agencies on how digital evidence should be collected. The argument focused on the need to protect people’s privacy while allowing police agencies to use technology during criminal investigations.
The Chief Justice recognised that technology has created new challenges for law enforcement. Digital information can be useful in criminal investigations, but authorities must also consider an individual’s right to privacy. The court indicated that there needs to be a balance between effective investigation and protection of personal information.
Police Defend Investigation
The police defended their decision to seek digital information as part of the investigation. Their counsel also criticised Upadhyay’s allegations concerning officials associated with the Ayodhya temple, saying such allegations should be supported by evidence.
The police maintained that they would investigate the matter and take appropriate action based on the evidence. They also assured the court that if the investigation does not find evidence of wrongdoing, the case could be closed.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the police to provide Upadhyay with a copy of the FIR and CCTV footage connected to the incident. The court had also granted him protection from arrest, allowing him to seek further legal relief.
The latest hearing has brought wider attention to the use of digital evidence in criminal investigations. As police increasingly depend on social media records, phone data and other online information, questions about privacy and the limits of such investigations are becoming more important.
The Supreme Court’s questions could have wider significance if the case leads to clearer guidelines on how much digital information investigating agencies can seek and when such requests are justified.
For now, the court has asked the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to explain the need for the requested digital data. The matter will continue to be considered by the Supreme Court, while the allegations in the FIR remain subject to investigation and legal proceedings.