1 week ago
Supreme Court Shields Journalist Challenging Ghaziabad Road Rage FIR
The Supreme Court considered a case involving journalist Abhishek Upadhyay.
Police in Ghaziabad had filed a road rage FIR against him.
Upadhyay said he had not received a copy of the FIR.
He also claimed that police pressured shopkeepers to erase CCTV footage.
He said the case was connected to his reporting about alleged corruption and donation handling at Ayodhya’s Ram temple.
The Supreme Court ordered that police should not take coercive action against him for now.
It told police to give him the FIR and asked the Uttar Pradesh government to respond.
The court directed him to approach the Allahabad High Court to seek cancellation of the FIR.
The Supreme Court protected journalist Abhishek Upadhyay from coercive action in a Ghaziabad road rage case.
Upadhyay had reported alleged irregularities in donations handling at Ayodhya’s Ram temple.
The court ordered that he receive a copy of the FIR lodged at Indirapuram police station.
Upadhyay alleged that police pressured nearby shopkeepers to delete relevant CCTV footage.
The court notified the Uttar Pradesh government, sought a police compliance affidavit, and directed him to seek FIR quashing in the Allahabad High Court.
- Who
- Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, Ghaziabad Police, the Uttar Pradesh government, and a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
- What
- The Supreme Court protected Upadhyay from coercive action while directing that he receive the FIR and pursue its quashing in the Allahabad High Court.
- Where
- The FIR was lodged at Indirapuram in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and the case was heard by the Supreme Court in New Delhi.
- When
- The order was issued on Tuesday; the matter was posted for hearing on September 7.
- Why
- Upadhyay sought to have the FIR quashed, or the investigation transferred to an independent agency, claiming it was connected to his reporting on alleged corruption in Uttar Pradesh.
Upadhyay’s Claims
Police Case
Validity of the FIR
Upadhyay’s Claims
Upadhyay sought quashing of the FIR and claimed it was planted because of his reporting on alleged corruption in Uttar Pradesh.
Police Case
The FIR was filed by Ghaziabad Police in connection with an alleged road rage case; the articles do not provide the police’s response to Upadhyay’s claim.
Handling of CCTV evidence
Upadhyay’s Claims
Upadhyay alleged that police forced nearby shopkeepers to delete CCTV visuals from the relevant time.
Police Case
The articles do not report a police explanation or response to the CCTV allegation.
Investigation agency
Upadhyay’s Claims
Upadhyay requested that the investigation be transferred to an independent agency other than the Uttar Pradesh Police.
Police Case
The articles do not state the position of the Uttar Pradesh government or police on transferring the investigation.
Key facts
- Journalist
- Abhishek Upadhyay
- Case
- Road rage FIR lodged at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
- Related reporting
- Alleged irregularities in handling donations at Ayodhya’s Ram temple
- Court protection
- The Supreme Court protected Upadhyay from coercive action.
- Evidence allegation
- Upadhyay claimed police pressured shopkeepers to delete relevant CCTV footage.
- Court directions
- Police must provide the FIR and submit a compliance affidavit; the Uttar Pradesh government received notice.
- Next hearing
- September 7
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Protects Journalist in Ghaziabad Road-Rage Case
Supreme Court to Hear Abhishek Upadhyay’s Ghaziabad FIR Plea
Journalist Challenges Police Request for Digital Activity Data
Journalist alleges UP police sought sources over temple reports
Supreme Court Protects YouTuber Reporting Ram Mandir Donation Allegations
Journalist Faces Ghaziabad Road-Rage FIR, Calls Case Planted
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
Supreme Court Quashes 20-Year Conviction, Reaffirms Juvenile Legal Protections
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
