"Overkill": SC Slams Ghaziabad Police for Seeking Journalist's Digital Data
The Supreme Court termed the Ghaziabad Police's demand for journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's digital data as overkill in a road-rage investigation.
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a sharp rebuke to the Ghaziabad Police, describing their attempt to seize extensive digital records from a journalist as "overkill." The court's observation came during a hearing involving Abhishek Upadhyay, an investigative journalist who was being targeted by authorities seeking his private digital life in connection with an alleged road-rage incident.
Privacy vs. Investigation
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi quashed a notice issued by the Ghaziabad Police to Upadhyay. The police notice had demanded his call records and various other forms of digital data, spanning several months prior to the alleged incident. The bench emphasized that while investigative agencies possess the legal authority to probe offences, this power cannot be used as a tool to invade an individual's private digital existence.
The court highlighted the delicate necessity of maintaining a balance between the state's investigative powers and the fundamental right to privacy, especially when the individual in question is an investigative journalist. "If we keep complete liberty (to investigate), the right of an investigative journalist also needs to be balanced," the bench observed.
Questioning the Scope of Data Demands
The bench raised serious questions regarding the proportionality and necessity of the police demand. The investigation pertained to a road-rage incident that reportedly occurred in August, yet the police sought digital records dating all the way back to June.
"You are asking the service provider for his call records for four months for a road-rage incident during June. We would understand if there is some conspiracy," the bench remarked, pointing out the massive discrepancy between the nature of the alleged crime and the breadth of the data requested.
Legal Powers vs. Manner of Exercise
During the proceedings, the Uttar Pradesh government defended the police action, citing the Information Technology Rules and asserting that authorities are legally empowered to conduct such investigations. However, the Supreme Court made a clear distinction between the existence of statutory power and the manner in which that power is applied.
The court clarified that it was not challenging the legality of the rules or the police's right to investigate under the IT Act. Instead, the focus was on the disproportionate and intrusive way the investigation was being conducted. The bench stated, "We are not against any rule. We are concerned with the manner of exercise of the power."
Interim Relief for Journalist
While the court left the underlying issues of the road-rage case open for further consideration, it provided immediate relief to Upadhyay by continuing the interim protection from arrest that had previously been granted to him.