The Supreme Court Today (July 8th) ruled that it is not permissible for courts to order an accused to share his Google PIN location with the authorities as a condition for the grant of bail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court declared that a bail condition allowing the police to continuously monitor the movements of an accused person and intrude into their privacy is not permissible.
This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
The court was scrutinizing the legality of a bail condition that mandated an accused person to share their location via a Google Maps PIN with the investigating officer. The bench concluded that this requirement infringes upon an individual’s right to privacy.
“There can’t be bail condition defeating the very objective of bail. There can’t be a bail condition enabling the police to constantly track the movement of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accused,”
-Justice Oka articulated during the pronouncement of the verdict.
The Supreme Court overturned the bail condition which compelled the accused to provide their Google Maps PIN to the investigating officer. Additionally, the court relaxed another bail condition that obligated foreign nationals to secure an assurance from their embassy, guaranteeing that they would not leave India.
The bench emphasized that bail conditions should not undermine the fundamental purpose of granting bail.
This decision was rendered in response to a special leave petition challenging the interim bail conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court on Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national implicated in a drug-related case. In 2022, the High Court had instructed the accused and a co-accused to place a pin on Google Maps to enable the Investigating Officer to monitor their whereabouts.
Furthermore, the High Court had required the accused to obtain a certification from the Nigerian High Commission affirming their commitment to remain in India and appear before the trial court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court had solicited an explanation from Google India regarding the functionality of Google PIN in the context of bail conditions that demanded the accused to share their live location.
Subsequently, Google India was excused from providing this explanation, and the court directed Google LLC to clarify the mechanics of Google PIN.
Upon reviewing the affidavit submitted by Google LLC, Justice Oka found it to be “superfluous” and observed that such a bail condition contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution.
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee, representing the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), argued in favor of the condition, stating that it facilitated the sharing of the accused’s live location. However, Justice Oka refuted this argument, underscoring that such a condition cannot be imposed, regardless of its previous application in two instances.
The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed two pivotal issues:
- The legitimacy of requiring an accused to share their Google PIN location as a bail condition
- And the propriety of conditioning bail for a foreign national on obtaining an assurance from their embassy that they will not depart from India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Google Pin Location
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
