New Delhi: Supreme Court asked the Ghaziabad Police Monday to state the kind of information it is seeking from microblogging platform X in relation to a road-rage case against a journalist who had flagged alleged irregularities in the handling of donations at Ayodhya’s Ram temple.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said once furnished, such information would be put in the public domain till further orders.
While dealing with Abhishek Upadhyay’s petition challenging the Ghaziabad Police’s FIR against him in the road-rage case, the bench emphasised that a balance has to be struck between an accused’s right to privacy and the rights of the victim and the investigating agency to thoroughly probe a matter.
“In a road-rage case, why will you require the digital footprint of the accused?” the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, asked the police counsel.
“(The Ghaziabad Police) may file an affidavit clarifying what kind of information is required to be furnished by X for the purpose of investigation,” the bench ordered, as it noted that Upadhyay would cooperate with the probe.
The senior counsel representing Upadhyay said there is a need to frame guidelines governing access to an accused’s social-media information, as in the present case, police are now seeking social-media information, details of IMEI number etc.
As the court asked police to state the reason behind seeking the information, the agency’s counsel urged the bench to examine the “sweeping” allegations made by Upadhyay against an engineer associated with the construction of the Ram temple.
“He is talking about regulation of police. What about regulation of this kind of journalism?” the lawyer questioned.
He added that there is an eyewitness statement in the road-rage case, which is at the stage of investigation, and if ultimately nothing is found against the journalist, it would be closed.
On August 25, the Supreme Court gave protection to Upadhyay from coercive action in the case and directed that a copy of the FIR lodged at Ghaziabad’s Indirapuram be provided to him.
In his plea, Upadhyay has contended that the FIR copy has not been supplied to him and that police are forcing nearby shopkeepers to delete the CCTV visuals of the relevant time.
Upadhyay has sought the quashing of the FIR or, in the alternative, that the investigation be transferred from the Uttar Pradesh Police to an independent agency.