The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Ghaziabad police commissioner to file an affidavit explaining what information it had sought from social media platform X in connection with a road rage case against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, Live Law reported.Upadhyay has claimed that the road-rage case was filed to harass him for his reports on the alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya. He was among the first to report on the alleged corruption.In a petition against the first information report against him, Upadhyay has filed an application challenging a notice the Uttar Pradesh Police had issued to X seeking information about his social media account.During the hearing on Monday, the counsel for Upadhyay contended that the police’s notice had sought information about the account dating back to June 1, even as the FIR in the road-rage case had been filed on August 18, reported Live Law. The police had also sought details about which devices had been used to log in to the account.The lawyer contended that the police were trying to find Upadhyay’s journalistic sources.The attorney general representing the Uttar Pradesh government said that there was a medico-legal case report showing injuries that needed to be investigated.In response, Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked why a person’s “digital footsteps” were needed in a road rage case.The FIR against Upadhyay, based on a complaint by a two-wheeler rider, alleged that the journalist hit his vehicle from behind and then threatened and abused him. It invoked provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act.On August 25, the Supreme Court granted Upadhyay protection from arrest in the case.During the hearing, the journalist had claimed that the road-rage allegations were baseless and that the security camera footage from the site would prove this. He also sought preservation of the footage from the area.Chief Justice Surya Kant, while granting Upadhyay protection from arrest, verbally remarked that while the court did not know the truth of the matter, it could understand the journalist’s apprehension.Edited by Sneha.