Supreme Court says it may not seriously consider quashing the Uttar Pradesh FIR against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who reported on the alleged theft of Ram Mandir donations, in a road-rage case he calls fabricated.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated orally that it might not seriously consider quashing the Uttar Pradesh Police FIR against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who was among the first to report on the alleged Ram Mandir donation theft row, in connection with an alleged road-rage incident, while Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed concern over a request made by the UP Police [Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
The petition, W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026, was earlier heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The allegations in the FIR are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the petitioner is presumed innocent.
How the case reached here
The FIR was registered on August 18 at the Indirapuram police station in Ghaziabad. The complainant alleged that a motorcycle was hit by a Baleno car near Shipra Mall and that the driver abused and threatened him, naming Upadhyay in connection with the car. His counsel told the Court the FIR also invokes stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Upadhyay denies the allegations. He says there was no collision or physical confrontation, that the FIR cites a motorcycle whose registration number belongs to a different bike, and that police pressured shopkeepers to delete or withhold CCTV footage. He contends that the FIR is a counter-blast to his reporting on alleged irregularities concerning the Ram Mandir Trust. He sought quashing, protection from arrest and, alternatively, an investigation by an agency other than the UP Police.
What the Court has done so far
On August 25, the Bench issued notice to the State, restrained coercive action against Upadhyay in the registered FIR or any similar FIR that may be registered against him, and directed the police to supply him a copy of the FIR. The Ghaziabad Police Commissioner was asked to file a compliance report, and the matter was listed for September 7.
At the September 7 hearing, the Bench asked the State why it needed the accused’s digital footprint in a road-rage case, observing orally that limits and guidelines are needed for collecting digital data because private information could violate privacy rights. The Court directed the State and the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to file affidavits on what information is sought from X for this or any earlier FIR against him, and said the information must not be made public.
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, for Upadhyay, argued that the police had sought data going back to June, though the incident was in August, and that the requests were an attempt to identify his journalistic sources. The State’s counsel said whether the incident was staged is a matter for investigation, and that police would file a closure report if nothing were found or a chargesheet if incriminating material emerged.
Why the order matters
The case sits at the intersection of two questions: how far a court should go in quashing an FIR at the investigation stage, and how far investigators may go in collecting a journalist’s digital data. The Court’s oral remark signals a reluctance to terminate the FIR at this stage, while its earlier directions keep interim protection and judicial oversight of the data requests in place. The final outcome will depend on the affidavits and the material gathered in the investigation. The full text of today’s remarks and any order were not available at the time of writing.
Case Title: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026] (title to be verified)
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justice V Mohana at earlier hearings), Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai for the petitioner (earlier hearings)