|
The Supreme Court on Monday sought an affidavit from the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner seeking clarification about the digital information the police have sought from social media platform X in connection with a road-rage case against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay.
The Court directed that the police specify the nature of the information sought from X for investigating the road-rage FIR or any other earlier FIR registered against Upadhyay. It also ordered that any such information should not be placed in the public domain. The interim directions already protecting Upadhyay will continue. Commissioner, Ghaziabad may file an affidavit clarifying as to what kind of information is required to be furnished by X for the purpose of investigation of the subject FIR or any other FIR registered earlier against the petitioner. However, no such information be brought in the public domain, the Court noted. Upadhyay, who had reported on Ram Temple donation row, alleged that he is being subjected to intrusive investigation in the road-rage case and that the police are seeking his digital footprints beyond what is necessary for the case. Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for Upadhyay, objected to the police seeking extensive digital information from social media platforms, including account, IP and device-related details. He said such information could potentially expose journalistic sources. Rai said the police had sought digital details after registration of the FIR and questioned the need for such information in what he described as an ordinary road-rage or accident case. Rai also referred to an alleged police raid at the residence of former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri in Nizamuddin East during the intervening night of August 22 and 23, saying a police team had purportedly gone there looking for Upadhyay. He said there was a need for guidelines governing the manner in which investigating agencies seek and use digital information. Investigation agencies have to be governed by the Constitution. My protection is there, but my contention is, there should be some guidelines for everyone, senior lawyer submitted. During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant noted the difficulties created by the increasing use of technology in criminal investigations and said a balance had to be maintained between effective investigation and privacy rights. Advancement of technology presents very complicated challenges for accused, victim and agencies. If they dont go through scientific methods, they will accuse them that the investigation is poor. Victim will also say you are not investigating so and so. Accused will say privacy rights. Some balance has to be there, the Court remarked. The CJI said the immediate issue before the Court was to determine the limits within which the police could access a persons digital footprint during an investigation. Rai maintained that the police were seeking digital information going back as far as a year and said guidelines were necessary to ensure that such requests did not become routine. The counsel appearing for the respondent, who is the original complainant in the road-rage case, opposed Upadhyays allegations against the police. He said Upadhyay was seeking regulation of the manner in which the police were investigating the case against him, while himself making sweeping allegations against others in his journalistic work. The counsel referred to Upadhyays reporting on the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi temple and said he had allegedly accused a government engineer of pocketing 40 per cent commission in the temples construction. He questioned whether such allegations, when made without evidence, could unfairly damage the reputation of the person named. If he is talking about regulation of police, what about regulation of journalism? he said. He also questioned whether journalism could amount to a media trial about everyone under the sun and said the allegation that the road-rage case was staged was itself a matter for investigation. The respondents counsel said an eyewitness had given a statement supporting the road-rage allegation and that a chargesheet would be filed after completion of the investigation. The Supreme Court asked the police to explain why the digital information sought from X was necessary to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Upadhyay has also sought quashing of the FIR or, alternatively, a CBI probe into the case. (ANI)
|
