SC on privacy protection: “No bail conditions allowing police surveillance”

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 8th July. The Supreme Court decided on Monday that it is unlawful to set bail terms that allow the police to follow an accused person about and violate their privacy.

This ruling was made in conjunction with the revocation of a bail requirement requiring the accused to provide the police with their location via Google Maps.

Judges AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan’s bench emphasized that such requirements violate one’s right to privacy.

The decision further ruled that no court may set requirements on bail that would defeat the whole intent of the bail process. “We have said in the judgment that here can’t be a bail condition that defeats the purpose of the bail itself… although it was told to us that Google pin is innocuous, we have said that no condition can be imposed that can virtually peep into the private life of accused,” said justice Oka as he read out the verdict.

Later on in the day, the full judgment will be released.

The decision is a significant clarification because providing Google Maps pins had already been mandated as a condition of bail by a number of courts, including several Supreme Court benches.

The panel had expressed disapproval of this conduct during an earlier hearing on the topic in April. In the end, technology is involved. How it will be used is unknown. However, this need shouldn’t be put in place. The bench ruled on April 29 that the Google Maps pin could not constitute a condition of bail. It also stated that as a location pin’s main use is for navigation and position identification, it may not be able to adequately monitor adherence to bail conditions and may even be abused.

This decision is the result of a petition against a Delhi High Court order that released a Nigerian national who was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and was given bail.

The high court imposed two strict requirements on the accused: first, they had to remove a Google Maps pin from their location so the investigating officer could find them; second, the Nigerian high commission had to guarantee that the accused would not flee the nation and would show up in trial court as scheduled.

The sharing requirement for a Google Maps pin raised issues in July 2023, as the Supreme Court stated that it would potentially impair the accused’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The accused’s right to privacy could be compromised by following their whereabouts after being granted bail with appropriate limitations, the court noted.

The Supreme Court then ordered the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to submit an affidavit outlining the specific technological requirements and repercussions of utilizing a Google Maps pin in August 2023.

MeitY did not go into great detail in their February affidavit regarding the technical details or the scope of the surveillance that was involved. Rather, it implied that Google India Pvt Ltd would be in a better position to supply these particulars. The court then ordered Google India to submit an affidavit outlining the technology underlying Google Maps pins and the extent of surveillance that they permit.

The Supreme Court had stated in April that it planned to issue a ruling ending the custom of making defendants reveal their Google Maps locations in order to obtain bail. The bench emphasized during a hearing that a condition of this kind might be abused and violate someone’s right to privacy. The case against using location pins to monitor bail terms is further supported by Google India’s arguments, which claim that they are “innocuous” and primarily intended as a navigational tool.

The accused in the NDPS case is granted interim bail in addition to the two strict bail terms being set aside by the Supreme Court’s decision today.