Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the Ghaziabad Crime Branch sought extensive digital data of his X account, overlapping with his reporting on Ram Mandir donation discrepancies, while Uttar Pradesh Police separately entered the residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking him.
What began as a road-rage dispute in Ghaziabad has widened into a legal battle over journalistic source confidentiality and police powers. Independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who operates the news portal Top Secret, is urging the Supreme Court of India to halt what his legal team describes as an intrusive fishing expedition into his digital footprint.
The controversy centers on an August 18 incident near Shipra Mall, where a local motorcyclist named Nikki Gautam alleged that a Baleno vehicle hit his bike from behind, and that the driver subsequently hurled threats and abuse. The complaint identified the vehicle owner as Upadhyay. Yet, rather than remaining a routine traffic grievance, the resulting FIR has ignited allegations of retaliation.
Digital Surveillance Notice Targets Months of Investigative Work
The legal friction intensified when Upadhyay received an email from social media platform X’s legal department in San Francisco, California. The notice revealed that the Crime Branch Investigation Unit in Ghaziabad had issued a notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) dated August 22, demanding production of extensive account-related data.
Appearing before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi detailed the breadth of the police demand. The Ghaziabad Police has sought my digital footprint from June 1, 2026 in connection to the road rage case..that is when I broke the Ram Mandir donations theft story..all of the sources would be revealed and they would be harassed by the police..I have received information from the Meta office from California that they have sought my digital footprint..I have filed an application,
Awasthi told the court on Upadhyay’s behalf.
The application points out a chronological mismatch. The road-rage FIR (Case No. 678/2026, registered at Indirapuram Police Station) targets an event on August 18. Yet investigators are demanding IP addresses, device and IMEI numbers, alternate email addresses, and access logs dating back to June 1. That window coincides with the period when Upadhyay was investigating irregularities and alleged donation theft surrounding the Ram Janmabhoomi premises. Upadhyay argues that handing over such data would effectively unmask confidential whistleblowers and informants who provided material for his corruption exposés.
Police Entry at Former Delhi Mayor’s Residence
The legal pressure expanded beyond digital demands when a Uttar Pradesh Police team entered the Nizamuddin East residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri during the intervening night of August 22 and August 23. According to court filings, the team was purportedly searching for Upadhyay, though the journalist was not present.
The episode triggered formal institutional grievances. Suri filed complaints with the Delhi Police on August 23, demanding an FIR, identification of the officers, preservation of CCTV footage, and tracking of vehicle and call-detail records. When those complaints were circulated among senior Delhi Police officials without yielding an FIR, Suri turned to the National Human Rights Commission on August 25 to secure protection and an inquiry into the raid.
In an additional affidavit filed in his Supreme Court writ petition on September 3, Upadhyay incorporated these developments, asking the bench to summon movement logs, Delhi-visit authorizations, and electronic records from the operation. His petition contends that the same police officer who had led the team which reached Suri’s residence is involved in the police action against him.
Supreme Court Intervention and Ongoing Protection
The Supreme Court has already intervened once to shield the journalist. On August 25, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana stayed Upadhyay’s arrest under Article 32, directing police to provide him a copy of the FIR so he could pursue further relief before the Allahabad High Court. The Ghaziabad Police Commissioner was ordered to file a compliance report regarding the delivery of that paperwork.
When the fresh application concerning the X account data was mentioned, the Chief Justice offered a brief response: We will see.
Meanwhile, Upadhyay maintains that the entire criminal proceeding invokes multiple statutes—including provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, and the Information Technology Act—to punish independent reportage.
Broader Implications for Journalistic Independence
The collision between state investigative powers and digital platform data requests highlights vulnerabilities for investigative journalists in India. When police agencies use routine criminal complaints to demand months of retroactive metadata, the immediate casualty is source protection. If historical IP logs and device identifiers are surrendered without a demonstrated, proximate nexus to the alleged offense, the effect extends far beyond a single newsroom, threatening the confidentiality that underpins investigative reporting nationwide.
