Supreme Court Rules Against Google Pin Location Sharing as Bail Condition

The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark ruling prohibiting courts from mandating accused individuals to share their Google pin location with authorities as a bail condition. This decision aims to safeguard the privacy of individuals released on bail.

Protecting the Purpose of Bail

Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that bail conditions should not undermine the fundamental purpose of granting bail. They stressed the importance of preventing law enforcement from continuously tracking the movements of those on bail.

Overturning High Court Ruling

In response to an appeal filed by the prosecution in a case involving a Nigerian citizen accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Supreme Court overturned a Delhi High Court decision that required the accused to share their Google Maps PIN with the investigating officer upon release.

Relaxing Additional Bail Conditions

The Supreme Court also relaxed another bail condition that mandated the accused to obtain an assurance from their embassy guaranteeing they would not leave India.

Privacy Concerns and Google’s Input

The court’s decision followed earlier orders requesting Google India to submit an affidavit detailing the technical aspects of dropping a PIN on Google Maps. This information was considered crucial in determining the impact of such a condition on an individual’s right to privacy.

Landmark Privacy Ruling

This ruling aligns with a landmark 2017 verdict by a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which unanimously declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s ruling against the use of Google Pin location sharing as a bail condition sets a significant precedent in protecting the privacy rights of accused individuals in India. It reinforces the fundamental principle that bail conditions should not infringe upon personal liberties, while also acknowledging the importance of technological advancements in the legal landscape. This decision is likely to influence future judicial practices and shape the ongoing discourse on privacy in the digital age.