The Supreme Court quashed a UP Police notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking extensive account, device and location data - including pre-incident information - from X/Twitter relating to journalist Abhishek Upadhyaya, and directed that data already obtained could not be used against him.
The Supreme Court's order in Abhishek Upadhyaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh (decided 14 October 2026, bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi) establishes a significant judicial checkpoint on the scope of police demands for digital data under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court quashed a notice issued by the Ghaziabad/Indirapuram police to X (formerly Twitter) seeking wide-ranging account, device and location information associated with journalist Abhishek Upadhyaya, including data predating the alleged incident. The Court further directed that data already obtained under the notice could not be used against the journalist.
Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - which replaced Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - empowers a court or officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons or written order requiring the production of any document or other thing necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The provision is broad in its terms, and its application to digital data held by intermediaries has been a source of significant concern for press freedom, digital rights, and the protection of journalistic sources.
The Supreme Court's intervention in this case identifies two distinct defects in the notice. First, the temporal scope of the demand - extending to data predating the alleged incident - was not justified by the investigative purpose asserted. A Section 94 demand must be connected to the specific investigation and must not be used as a vehicle for general surveillance or the retrospective collection of data unrelated to the alleged offence. Second, the breadth of the demand - encompassing account information, device data and location data - was disproportionate to the stated investigative need. The Court's quashing of the notice on both grounds signals that Section 94 demands must satisfy a proportionality standard.
The ruling should be understood in its specific procedural context. It is not a comprehensive ruling on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, or on the general law governing digital searches and seizures. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 governs the processing of personal data by data fiduciaries and data processors; it does not directly regulate the exercise of investigative powers by law enforcement agencies, which remain governed by the BNSS and other procedural statutes. The Supreme Court's order addresses the limits of Section 94 BNSS in the specific context of a demand directed at an intermediary for a journalist's data.
For intermediaries and platform operators, the ruling reinforces the importance of scrutinising the scope and temporal reach of Section 94 demands before compliance. A demand that extends beyond the specific investigation, seeks pre-incident data without justification, or is disproportionately broad in its coverage of account, device and location information may be challenged. Intermediaries should maintain documented procedures for reviewing law enforcement demands and, where appropriate, seeking judicial clarification before producing data.
For journalists, media organisations and digital rights practitioners, the ruling provides a concrete basis for challenging overbroad investigative demands for digital data. The Supreme Court's direction that data already obtained could not be used against the journalist also establishes a remedial principle: the quashing of an unlawful demand is not merely prospective but extends to data already collected under it. This principle has significant implications for the admissibility of evidence obtained through disproportionate or unlawful Section 94 demands.
