Three months of a journalist’s digital data was what the UP Police asked X for; the Supreme Court Quashes UP Police Notice To X, calling the exercise an overkill, and protects Abhishek Upadhyay from coercive action in a road-rage FIR whose allegations remain untested.
New Delhi: A police request to a social media platform for a journalist’s digital data has been set aside by the Supreme Court. On Wednesday the Court quashed the notice the Uttar Pradesh Police had issued to X (formerly Twitter) about Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with a road-rage FIR, and made absolute the interim protection from coercive action granted to him earlier [Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026 was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The allegations in the FIR are untested, the Court has expressed no view on their merits, and the petitioner is presumed innocent.
What the Court ordered
The notice to X stands quashed, and any information obtained through it, or otherwise, shall not be used against the petitioner. His interim protection from coercive action is now absolute, on the condition that he cooperates with the investigation. The vehicle seized from him is to be released immediately, and within two days at the latest. Upadhyay may challenge the FIR before the competent High Court; the Court expressed no opinion on its contents. Asked whether guidelines should be framed for collecting personal and digital data during investigations, the CJI said the question could be taken up in an appropriate petition.
The “overkill” remark
Justice Bagchi observed that asking for personal or digital data from the period before the alleged incident was excessive.
Seizing data of 3 months prior to date of alleged incident seems to be an overkill.
The Bench held that personal or confidential information cannot be sought for the period before the occurrence, and that even after an FIR is registered it can be sought only where alternative investigative measures are inadequate.
The FIR and the notice
Upadhyay is an investigative journalist who reported on alleged misappropriation of donations connected with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple. An FIR was registered against him at the Indirapuram police station in Ghaziabad. It alleges that a car hit a motorcyclist near Shipra Mall, that the complainant was threatened, and that casteist remarks were made. Upadhyay denies the allegations and contends that the incident was staged in retaliation for his reporting.
The Court had granted him interim protection from coercive action on August 25 and directed that a copy of the FIR be supplied to him. Earlier today, the Bench had indicated orally that it might not seriously consider quashing the FIR itself, while Justice Bagchi had flagged concern over the police request to X.
That request sought, among other things, login and logout IP addresses, email ID, IMEI number and registration logs for roughly three months before the incident. In an affidavit, the Commissioner of Police stated that the purpose was to trace and arrest the journalist, which the Court found somewhat inconsistent with what the notice actually sought.
What the ruling means
The order sets a limit on how far investigators may reach into a person’s online footprint in an ordinary criminal case. By tying any request for personal data to necessity and to the inadequacy of other investigative steps, and by barring use of what was already collected, the Court has narrowed the reach of such notices to intermediaries.
The FIR itself is left untouched. Whether the road-rage allegations hold up will be decided in the investigation, and any challenge to the FIR must go to the High Court.
Case Title: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [W.P.(Crl.) No. 339/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai and Advocate Anoop Kumar Awasthi for the petitioner