Who Is Targeting Abhishek Upadhyay the Journalist Who Pursued the Ram Temple Donation Theft Case?
Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay is back before the Supreme Court. This time, the immediate issue is an FIR registered by Ghaziabad Police over an alleged road-rage incident near Shipra Mall on August 18. But reducing the controversy to a traffic altercation misses the much larger question surrounding the case.
Upadhyay was among the journalists who pursued allegations of theft and irregularities involving donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. Those allegations did not simply vanish after publication. The Uttar Pradesh government constituted a Special Investigation Team, an FIR was subsequently registered in June against eight people, all eight were arrested, and investigators eventually reported serious weaknesses in the system used to handle temple donations. A separate SIT operating under Supreme Court supervision continues to examine the matter.
The state SIT’s final report reportedly found gross lapses in financial management and discrepancies between donation receipts and deposits, even while clearing senior former Trust functionaries of criminal culpability. On August 17, the Supreme Court itself asked the SIT investigating the donation affair to submit a status report and take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
Against that background, an obvious question arises when the journalist who pursued this story suddenly alleges that the Uttar Pradesh Police is using an unrelated criminal case to intimidate him.
Who is targeting Abhishek Upadhyay, and why?
The Donation Story Was Not a Manufactured Controversy
This point must be established first because it changes how everything that followed should be viewed.
Upadhyay did not merely throw an accusation into the public domain and move on. The allegations concerning donations triggered official investigations, arrests and judicial scrutiny. Whatever the ultimate criminal liability of individual officials may be, the investigation itself has documented significant failures in the system.
That matters.
Journalism is supposed to uncover precisely this kind of problem. Money donated by devotees to one of India’s most important temples should be handled with the highest possible standard of transparency. If journalists identify weaknesses, suspected theft or financial irregularities, exposing them is not hostility towards the Ram Temple.
It is the opposite.
Protecting the sanctity of devotees’ donations requires exposing anyone who steals, mishandles or negligently supervises that money.
Then Comes the Road-Rage FIR
On August 18, an FIR was registered at Indirapuram police station following an alleged incident involving Upadhyay’s car and a motorcycle.
According to the complainant, the motorcycle was hit and threats and abuse followed. Upadhyay disputes that account. He has now approached the Supreme Court alleging that the case is based on false and concocted allegations and was registered to harass him because of his investigative journalism.
A road-rage complaint by itself would hardly constitute evidence of a conspiracy.
But what Upadhyay alleges happened afterwards is precisely why this case requires greater scrutiny.
He says police personnel went to his residence late at night when he was absent, his vehicle was taken away, and nearby establishments were pressured over CCTV footage. His Supreme Court petition reportedly alleges that police were asking shopkeepers to delete relevant CCTV recordings.
Those allegations are yet to be established in court.
But they cannot simply be shrugged off either.
If the case is an ordinary road-rage investigation, the police should have no difficulty preserving every CCTV recording, producing the complainant’s vehicle details, establishing the sequence of events and explaining every coercive step taken against Upadhyay.
Evidence should settle it.
Who Wanted This Journalist Under Pressure?
This is where the question becomes uncomfortable.
Who benefits if Abhishek Upadhyay becomes preoccupied with criminal cases rather than journalism?
Who benefits if the journalist pursuing the Ram Temple donation affair begins worrying about police teams arriving at his home?
Who benefits if other reporters watch what happens to him and conclude that investigating politically or institutionally sensitive stories comes with a personal price?
We do not yet know the answer.
There is presently no established evidence showing that a particular politician, bureaucrat, police officer or temple functionary ordered retaliation against Upadhyay. Naming an individual without evidence would undermine the very principle of accountability this case demands.
But the absence of an identified mastermind is not a reason to stop asking the question.
It is the reason to investigate it.
The Timing Makes the Questions Harder to Ignore
The chronology is particularly striking.
The Uttar Pradesh SIT’s final report on the donation controversy reached the government around August 18. The road-rage FIR against Upadhyay was also registered on August 18.
That coincidence does not prove coordination.
But when the journalist alleging harassment is intimately connected with the story under investigation, such timing warrants scrutiny rather than ridicule.
Investigators should determine exactly when the complaint against Upadhyay was received, who handled it, who approved subsequent action, what instructions were given to officers, why his residence was visited in the manner alleged, and whether anyone outside the normal investigative chain contacted the police.
Follow the paperwork.
Follow the phone calls.
Follow the chain of command.
This Is Not Upadhyay’s First Encounter With UP Police
There is another reason the latest episode cannot be viewed entirely in isolation.
In 2024, Upadhyay approached the Supreme Court over a different Uttar Pradesh Police FIR arising from an article concerning caste dynamics in administrative appointments.
The Supreme Court protected him against coercive action and made an important observation: merely because a journalist’s writings are perceived as criticism of the government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer.
Now the same journalist is once again before the country’s highest court complaining about UP Police action.
One FIR can be explained as circumstance.
A second confrontation involving the same journalist inevitably raises questions about whether a pattern is developing.
The Yogi Government Should Want This Cleared Up
The Uttar Pradesh government should not treat demands for answers as an attack.
It should demand those answers itself.
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s government constituted the original SIT investigating the donation allegations. If that government genuinely wants the theft and irregularities exposed, it should also want journalists who investigated them to work without intimidation.
There is no political advantage in allowing the impression that one arm of the state investigates alleged wrongdoing while another arm pressures the journalist who helped expose it.
If Ghaziabad Police acted entirely legitimately, an independent examination of the evidence will vindicate them.
If individual officers exceeded their authority, they should answer for it.
And if someone outside the police machinery encouraged the action, that person must be identified.
Let an Independent Investigation Follow the Power Trail
Upadhyay has asked the Supreme Court to quash the FIR. Alternatively, he wants its investigation transferred to an agency outside the Uttar Pradesh Police.
The second request deserves serious consideration because the credibility problem is now obvious.
When a journalist alleges that a police force itself is being used to intimidate him, asking that same police hierarchy to investigate whether it is intimidating him inspires little confidence.
An independent investigation need not begin with the assumption that Upadhyay is right. It should begin with no assumption whatsoever.
Examine the collision allegation.
Secure every CCTV recording.
Verify the motorcycle.
Examine call records connected with the investigation where legally permissible.
Establish who deployed officers.
Determine who authorised the seizure of the vehicle.
And establish whether anybody with an interest in the Ram Temple donation investigation contacted police personnel before or after the FIR.
Then publish the truth.
The Question Cannot Be Allowed to Disappear
Abhishek Upadhyay pursued allegations concerning money donated by ordinary devotees.
Those allegations became serious enough for arrests, SIT investigations and intervention by the Supreme Court.
Now the journalist himself says the police machinery is being turned against him.
Perhaps the road-rage FIR is exactly what the police say it is. If so, objective evidence can establish that quickly.
But if it is not, India deserves to know something far more important than whether one FIR survives judicial scrutiny.
It deserves to know who wanted Abhishek Upadhyay under pressure.
The journalist followed the money.
The Supreme Court should now ensure that investigators follow the power trail.
