A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the state on Tuesday, August 25. It directed police not to take coercive action against Upadhyay in the FIR already registered or in any similar case that may be registered against him. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 7.
The court also directed the police to provide Upadhyay with a copy of the FIR registered at Indirapuram in Ghaziabad, allowing him to pursue available legal remedies. The Ghaziabad police authorities were asked to file a compliance report. During the hearing, the Bench indicated that Upadhyay could approach the Allahabad High Court after obtaining the FIR if he wished to seek quashing of the case.
The FIR was registered on August 18 following a complaint arising from an alleged road-rage episode involving Upadhyay’s car and a two-wheeler. The complainant alleged that Upadhyay struck the vehicle from behind before threatening and abusing him. Police invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Upadhyay has disputed the allegations and told the Supreme Court that the incident had been fabricated. His petition maintains that he was returning home after collecting his minor daughter from school when a motorcyclist came alongside his vehicle and attempted to stop him. He says he avoided an argument because his daughter was with him and denies any collision, physical confrontation or verbal abuse.
His counsel, senior advocate Pradeep Rai, argued that the prosecution was retaliatory and linked it to Upadhyay’s investigative journalism. The journalist has reported on alleged irregularities involving donations associated with the Ram temple in Ayodhya and has also published material concerning alleged corruption in the Uttar Pradesh administration. The claims underlying those reports remain allegations and have been contested in the wider public and legal arena.
Rai asked the court to ensure a fair investigation and raised the availability of CCTV footage from the location where the alleged road-rage incident occurred. Upadhyay’s petition alleges that colleagues who sought footage from shops and establishments near the site learnt that police personnel had already approached some premises and had pressed for footage to be deleted or withheld. Those allegations have not been judicially established.
The petition also questions aspects of the complainant’s account, including the ownership of the two-wheeler involved. Upadhyay has alleged that the person who filed the complaint was not its owner and has portrayed the episode as part of an attempt to intimidate him because of his journalism. Police allegations against him, however, remain subject to investigation and have not been adjudicated on their merits.
During arguments, Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that an allegation of a vehicle hitting a scooter followed by caste-based abuse could constitute an offence if established. The Bench also distinguished such a situation from a case where allegations were shown to be imaginary or fabricated. The court’s interim order therefore protects Upadhyay from coercive action without determining the truth of either side’s version at this stage.
Upadhyay approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, citing apprehension of arrest and coercive action and seeking protection of his fundamental rights. His petition also sought relief against the FIR and raised concerns about the manner in which the investigation was being conducted.
