Recently, in a unique case, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) scrutinized[1] a bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court on a Nigerian national accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The High Court had granted bail to the accused with the stipulation that he must drop a Google Maps pin to share his location with the police. The accused appealed against this stipulation on the grounds that the same infringed his right to privacy.
The Supreme Court expressed concerns about privacy infringement and potential misuse of such technology, signalling a forthcoming judgment that may redefine bail conditions against the backdrop of techno-legal advancements.
Traditionally, bail conditions included physical reporting to authorities or restrictions on movement. However, with technological advancements, courts have increasingly explored digital means to monitor compliance, such as location sharing.
The imposition of digital monitoring conditions, such as sharing of Google Maps pins, raises data privacy concerns. The constitutional implications of imposing location pins as a bail condition primarily revolve around the right to privacy, enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This right, affirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark Puttaswamy[2] case, extends to protecting individuals from unwarranted state intrusion into their personal lives.
In the present case, the Supreme Court voiced concerns about the privacy risks associated with mandating the sharing of location pins as a condition for bail and asked Google India to explain the technology that enables the sharing of location.
The central issue in this case also aligns with the principles of data protection outlined in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) which mandates the collection and use of personal data for limited and legitimate purposes.
Judicial precedents reveal a consistent effort by the Indian judiciary to balance technological advancements with privacy rights. The Supreme Court has previously upheld privacy as a fundamental right, emphasizing that any state action infringing on this right must meet the test of necessity and proportionality.
Internationally, jurisdictions like the European Union have established stringent data protection frameworks, such as the General Data Protection Regulation, that emphasize the need for consent and proportionality in data processing. Comparative jurisprudence suggests a growth in prioritizing of data privacy, particularly in legal contexts where personal freedoms are at stake.
Similarly, in India, the DPDP Act allows the state to collect and use personal data of individuals without their express consent only on certain ‘legitimate’ grounds. These grounds include the provision of social benefits to individuals, performance of state functions, and compliance with any law, judgement, or order.
The Supreme Court’s inquiry into the privacy implications of location pins reaffirms the shifting commitments to upholding privacy rights of individuals. This stance is significant to ensure that technological interventions in legal processes do not compromise individual freedoms and privacy.
The final judgement of this case is awaited but the implications of this judgement may extend beyond this individual case, potentially setting new precedents for how personal data is handled in legal proceedings vis-à-vis individual’s right to privacy under the Constitution of India.
—
[1] Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors., Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6339-6340/202
[2] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 809 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1462
AUTHORS: Dhiraj Mhetre (Partner) | Purvi Morwal (Associate)