Bail Condition That Accused Should Share Google Location With Police Prima Facie Violates Right To Privacy : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that imposing a bail condition requiring an accused to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, is prima facie violative of his right to privacy. 

A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s challenge against a Delhi High Court order that had granted bail to the internal auditor of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL) in a money laundering case involving bank loan fraud of several crores.

The Court is set to consider whether the bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court on the accused requiring him to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, could be permitted in view of Article 21 of the Constitution.

When the matter came up today, Justice Oka said such a bail condition may prima facie encroach upon the fundamental right to privacy. 

"You must explain to us the practical effect of such a condition. Once a person is set at liberty, certain conditions are imposed. But here you are tracking their movement after grant of bail, isn't this violative of right to privacy"?  Justice Oka asked Adv. Zoheb Hussain appearing for the Enforcement Directorate. 

"In the good old times, when bail is given, they are required to report to the IO every week. This is only technology facilitating the same thing"  Hussain told the Court. 

" But that is different from tracking the movement of the accused.." Justice Oka responded. 

The Counsel for ED also submitted that in the Puttuswamy case, the Apex Court had held that crime prevention is a valid reason for infringing upon right to privacy. 

"But this issue was never for consideration in Puttuswamy" Justice Oka replied.  

The matter has been posted for 12th December for further consideration. Earlier, the Court had decided to examine the constitutional validity of such a bail condition.

Clause (d) of the bail condition imposed by the Delhi High Court, the permissibility of which the Apex Court is set to consider, is as follows:

(d) The applicant shall drop a Google pin location from his mobile phone to the IO concerned which shall be kept operational throughout his bail

In the matter at hand an FIR was registered due to financial irregularity and siphoning of funds in relation to credit facilities obtained by SBFL from a consortium of banks led by the SBI and causing an estimated loss of Rs. 3269.42 crores.

The case of the respondent is that he was not named as an accused in the FIR and during the period under enquiry he was not the internal auditor of SBFL.

The Delhi High Court had held that CBI may proceed with the investigation but released the applicant on bail on the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand Only) each with surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (b) The applicant shall not leave the country and if the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the trial Court;

(c) The applicant shall furnish to the IO/SHO concerned his cellphone number on which the applicant may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;

(d) The applicant shall drop a Google pin location from his mobile phone to the IO concerned which shall be kept operational throughout his bail;

(e) The applicant shall not indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful, illegal or that would prejudice the proceedings in pending cases, if any;

(f) The applicant shall join investigation as and when directed by the IO and will appear in court as and when required

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement V Raman Bhuraria, Diary No.- 23447 - 2023