Police Can't Seek Journalist's X Data From Before Alleged Offence: Supreme Court Quashes Ghaziabad Notice, Stays Arrest

The petitioner, described as an investigative journalist running the digital platform 'Top Secret', published reports in June 2026 on alleged irregularities at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, Ayodhya (para 2). An FIR was then registered at P.S. Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, alleging that on 18.08.2026 his car hit the complainant's motorcycle and that he abused and threatened the complainant and made remarks after asking his name and caste; he denies the incident and says it was staged because of his reporting (paras 2-3). He sought quashing of the FIR under Article 32; on 25.08.2026 the Court barred coercive action (paras 1, 5). He then challenged a police notice of 22.08.2026 to X (para 7).

The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, said the notice to X was issued only to trace the petitioner, who could not be found after the FIR of 20.08.2026, and that the Court's interim order had made that purpose irrelevant (paras 8-9). The Court found that the notice demanded log-in and log-out IPs, an alternative email, mobile number, location, device and IMEI details and IP logs from 01.06.2026 to 22.08.2026, a period largely before the alleged road-rage incident (para 11). The tracing explanation thus contradicted the notice itself (para 12). In the circumstances, no confidential or personal information of the petitioner could be obtained for the period before the offence; even data after the FIR cannot be sought unless adequate measures preserve the privacy of personal data and proportionality is applied, that is, when alternative measures to complete the investigation are found inadequate (para 12). The respondents raised no such plea, so the notice was quashed and any information taken under it or otherwise cannot be used against him (para 12). The Court expressed no opinion on the FIR itself (para 17).