In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) delivered a critical ruling on the intersection of technology, privacy, and criminal justice, expanding on the issues we explored in our previous article on bail conditions involving Google Maps.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Frank Vitus vs. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.[1], examined whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share a Google Maps pin with the investigating officer infringes on their right to privacy.
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring an accused to drop a Google Maps pin for police tracking is unconstitutional and an infringement on their right to privacy, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that bail conditions should not enable the police to continuously monitor an accused’s movements, as such surveillance essentially curtails their liberty.
Virtual Surveillance and Right to Privacy
The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed that imposing a bail condition which enables constant surveillance of an accused during their bail violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of a bail condition of surveillance cannot be to continuously monitor the movements of the accused, as such a condition would amount to virtual confinement.
Technological Limitations of the Bail Condition
The Supreme Court had issued a notice to Google LLC to understand the technical aspects of dropping a Google pin. Google LLC clarified that a feature of Google Maps permits users to create or share a pinned location of their choice. This feature does not infringe upon the users’ privacy as the user retains the control on sharing of the pinned location. Further, the pinned location so shared by a user does not enable the recipient of the pinned location to track the user in real time. Therefore, these aspects of the technology used for sharing pinned locations do not assist the investigating officers and serve as redundant measures to track an accused on bail.
KLA Analysis
This judgment sets a precedent for the constitutional protection of individual privacy in the face of technological surveillance. It emphasises that while technology can aid legal processes, it must not undermine the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court ruling also points to a broader issue — the necessity for courts to develop a deeper understanding of technological capabilities and the purpose for which it is being used, before integrating them into legal processes. Courts have previously relied on similar location tracking techniques and other technologies to aid in legal processes. In the absence of a comprehensive grasp of how these technologies function, risks of imposing conditions that are ineffective or excessively intrusive may arise, as witnessed in the present case.
—
[1] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1657
AUTHORS: Dhiraj Mhetre (Partner) | Purvi Morwal (Associate)