A journalist who reported on alleged irregularities in donations to the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Ghaziabad Police’s request for his digital footprint. Abhishek Upadhyay, who runs a YouTube channel, argued that disclosing such information could compromise his journalistic sources.
Information was available with The Chenab Times indicating that Upadhyay’s counsel, Anoop Prakash Awasthi, informed a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that the investigating officer had sought all digital details from June 1, 2026, up to the present date. This request, counsel argued, extended far beyond the August 18, 2026, date of the alleged road rage incident for which the FIR was registered. Awasthi submitted that the period for which data was sought coincided with his collection of information for a report on alleged irregularities in Ram Mandir donations, and its disclosure would leave his sources vulnerable to state machinery.
The journalist alleged that a police team visited his residence on the night of August 20, informing him of an FIR registered at Indirapuram Police Station concerning alleged road rage and abusive behaviour. Upadhyay contends that the FIR is based on fabricated allegations and constitutes an attempt to harass him for his independent journalistic work.
Earlier, on August 25, the Supreme Court had granted Upadhyay protection from coercive action in connection with the FIR filed by the Ghaziabad Police. The bench, which also included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh government, seeking a response to Upadhyay’s petition that aimed to quash the FIR. The matter was scheduled for further hearing.
The court’s interim order stipulated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner in the existing FIR or any other FIRs that might be registered against him, to the court’s knowledge. The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the FIR be provided to Upadhyay and sought a compliance affidavit from the police authorities. While the court had initially suggested Upadhyay approach the Allahabad High Court for quashing the FIR, he moved the apex court apprehending his arrest.
Upadhyay’s petition also highlighted that he had not been supplied with a copy of the FIR. He further alleged that the police were attempting to compel nearby shopkeepers to delete CCTV footage relevant to the alleged incident. In his plea, Upadhyay sought either the quashing of the FIR or, alternatively, the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency beyond the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Police, suggesting the Delhi Police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as suitable alternatives.
The journalist reiterated that the FIR, lodged in Ghaziabad over the alleged road rage incident, was a consequence of his reporting on alleged corruption within the Uttar Pradesh government and irregularities in the handling of donations for the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. The alleged incident reportedly occurred on August 18 near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad, involving a motorcyclist who allegedly came into contact with Upadhyay’s car. Upadhyay stated that the motorcyclist subsequently contacted the police helpline, leading to the registration of the FIR.
Upadhyay’s counsel informed the bench that the Ghaziabad Police’s request to X (formerly Twitter) headquarters in California for his digital footprint from June 1, 2026, was unexpected. The counsel emphasized that the period predates the alleged road rage incident and aligns with the journalist’s investigation into the Ram temple donations, raising concerns about the intent behind seeking such extensive digital records.
The Chenab Times News Desk