The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a directive by the Uttar Pradesh police seeking the digital footprints of a journalist, had reported the alleged donation theft at the Ayodhya Ram Temple, from June onwards in connection with an alleged road rage case registered against him on August 18.
The court also directed the police to release his vehicle, which was involved in the alleged road rage case, within two days. We do not want guidelines to be misused but if we give complete liberty to the police, the right of investigative journalists can also be affected. You may injunct your agency (UP police) from collecting any data prior to the date of incident. The observations were significant as Upadhyay had published a series of reports in June on alleged donation theft at the Ayodhya Ram Temple. The FIR stated that the man accused Upadhyay of hurling abuses and a caste slur at him.
However, it directed the police, “Any information collected for the period prior to August 22 shall not be used against the petitioner. The court said, “We are not on whether you have the power under the 2021 Rules but on the manner of implementing the rule. Upadhyay runs a YouTube channel and had claimed that a police team visited his residence on August 20 and informed him about the criminal case against him over allegations of road rage and abusive behaviour. The alleged incident took place on August 18 near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad when a motorcyclist brushed against his car.
Terming the order issued by the Ghaziabad police to social media intermediary ‘X’ on August 22 an “overkill”, the court noted, based on the response filed by the Ghaziabad commissioner of police, that information had been sought from ‘X’ to trace journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who could not be located following the registration of the first information report (FIR). It further said, “The arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed until further orders. Raising a pertinent concern, the bench said, “Something needs to be seen that in the guise of investigation, no roving and fishing enquiry is made into one’s personal information. Permitting the petitioner to raise the issue of framing guidelines in this regard before a competent court, the court said, “Guidelines are needed. Additional advocate general (AAG) Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, informed the court that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the police was empowered to seek “any” information and that the request had been made in exercise of this power. The petitioner had other activities which he says may be damaging to the state.
Since the court had already protected Upadhyay from arrest or coercive action in connection with the road rage incident, the bench allowed him to challenge the FIR before the appropriate court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
He initially urged the court to expand the scope of the petition by laying down guidelines but later agreed to file a fresh petition in this regard.
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for Upadhyay, said the petition raised a larger issue of whether the police could use a person’s private and confidential information under the guise of an investigation. He said the alleged road rage case was a “concocted story” to target the petitioner for his investigative stories.
