Journalist Alleges Police Overreach in Ayodhya Temple Scam Probe, Seeks Supreme Court Protection

In a significant legal escalation, journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging that the Ghaziabad police are utilizing a routine road rage investigation as a pretext to surveil his digital activities and uncover his confidential sources.

The controversy stems from Upadhyay’s reporting on the alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The journalist contends that police have requested extensive digital footprints from social media platform X, dating back to June 1, in connection with an FIR registered regarding an alleged road rage incident that occurred on August 18.

Privacy Concerns and Alleged Overreach

Representing Upadhyay, counsel Anoop P. Awasthi informed a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the police’s request to X’s headquarters in California constitutes a “gross violation of the right to privacy.” The legal team argues that by accessing data predating the alleged incident by over two months, the authorities are effectively attempting to map out the journalist’s private communications and identify the informants who provided critical leads regarding the Ram temple cash theft.

In his formal application to the apex court, Upadhyay pointed out the lack of logical connection between the police’s demand and the stated investigation. “The FIR concerns an alleged incident of Aug 18, yet the investigating agency seeks the petitioner’s IP and account-related information from June 1, well before the alleged incident,” the application stated. “No nexus between such sweeping historical digital information and the investigation of the alleged incident has been disclosed in the impugned notice.”

Court’s Response

The Supreme Court bench noted that it had already granted Upadhyay protection from coercive action in the road rage case during a hearing on August 25. Addressing the new development, the bench directed that the fresh application, which challenges the police’s digital tracking measures, be listed for hearing in due course.

This legal battle highlights ongoing tensions regarding press freedom, the protection of journalistic sources, and the limits of state surveillance powers. As the matter proceeds, observers remain focused on whether the judiciary will place strict boundaries on the extent to which law enforcement can access historical digital data in criminal investigations.