Can Location Sharing Be a Condition of Bail?

On July 8, the Supreme Court of India ruled that courts cannot impose bail conditions requiring accused individuals to share their location via Google Maps. The court emphasized that such conditions violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered this landmark decision, highlighting that forcing people to disclose their whereabouts infringes on their privacy rights. This ruling underscore the importance of protecting personal privacy, even in legal proceedings, ensuring that individuals’ rights are upheld during the bail process.

Case Background

In May 2022, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Frank Vitus and Ebera Nwanaforo, Nigerian nationals accused in a drug smuggling case. As part of their bail conditions, they were required to drop a location PIN on Google Maps to inform the Investigation Officer of their whereabouts. Additionally, they had to obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission pledging not to leave India. These conditions aimed to ensure their presence during legal proceedings.

However, on July 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of India overturned these conditions, emphasizing that requiring individuals to share their location via Google Maps violated their right to privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the ruling, highlighting that while bail conditions are meant to secure court attendance, they must not infringe on fundamental rights. This decision reaffirms the importance of balancing legal requirements with the protection of individual privacy rights in judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed an affidavit from Google, clarifying that sharing a pinned location does not enable real-time tracking of the user or their device. The Court deemed the location-sharing condition imposed by the Delhi High Court as “completely redundant” and ineffective for tracking the accused

Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that any bail condition allowing police or investigation agencies to use technology to track the movements of the accused violates their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the location-sharing requirement, emphasizing the importance of upholding privacy rights even in legal proceedings. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to balancing law enforcement needs with constitutional protections of individual privacy.

Certificate of Assurance

The Supreme Court also addressed the requirement for a “certificate of assurance” from the Nigerian High Commission. They deemed this condition unreasonable, highlighting that obtaining such a certificate is not within the control of the accused individuals. The Court emphasized that if the embassy fails to issue the certificate within a reasonable timeframe, it would be unfair to deny bail based on an impossible condition.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered the removal of this requirement as well, affirming that bail conditions should be practical and achievable by the accused. This decision reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring that bail terms are reasonable and do not impose undue hardship or impossibilities on those seeking bail.

Context of the Case

In May 2014, Frank Vitus, Ebera Nwanaforo, and Eric Jayden were arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Delhi on charges related to a drug consignment. The NCB claimed to have received secret information leading to the arrest, with Jayden allegedly found carrying 1.9 kg of Methamphetamine.

Vitus and Nwanaforo contested the charges, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking them to the alleged drug trafficking. They also pointed out that they had been in custody for eight years awaiting trial, citing their entitlement to bail under the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1994 case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India & Ors.

In that case, the Supreme Court laid down principles to prevent the prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners, emphasizing that bail should be granted in cases where trials are delayed without valid reasons. The Court stressed the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial as fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Vitus, Nwanaforo, and Jayden’s defense likely relied on these principles, arguing that the prolonged detention without trial warranted their release on bail. They would have asserted that the lack of personal incriminating evidence and the lengthy pre-trial detention constituted grounds for their bail application under these Supreme Court guidelines.

Ultimately, their case would hinge on demonstrating that their continued detention without a speedy trial violated their constitutional rights, as established in the landmark 1994 Supreme Court decision.

Legal Precedent

The 1994 Supreme Court case established important guidelines regarding bail for undertrial prisoners, particularly under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. It stipulated that if there is a delay in disposing of cases where the offense is punishable by ten years or more, the accused should be considered for bail after five years of detention. The bail requires a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties. For foreign nationals, such as in the recent case involving Nigerian nationals, an additional condition included obtaining a certificate of assurance from their embassy.

However, the recent Supreme Court ruling clarified that while these general conditions from 1994 are still applicable, any additional conditions imposed, such as those requiring location sharing via Google Maps or obtaining certificates beyond the control of the accused, cannot be enforced. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to protecting fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in the context of bail conditions. Thus, while the core principles of the 1994 case remain intact, they must be applied in a manner that respects and upholds individual rights and freedoms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling on bail conditions, particularly in the case involving Frank Vitus and Ebera Nwanaforo, marks a significant advancement in upholding individual privacy rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. By overturning the requirement for accused individuals to share their location via Google Maps and dismissing the necessity of obtaining a “certificate of assurance” from the Nigerian High Commission, the Court reaffirmed the principle that bail conditions must not infringe on fundamental rights.

This landmark decision underscores the Court’s commitment to balancing the needs of law enforcement with the protection of personal privacy. The Court clarified that while bail conditions can ensure the accused’s presence during legal proceedings, they should not impose impractical or invasive requirements that undermine constitutional protections. The ruling’s broader implications extend beyond this case, setting a precedent for future bail conditions under the NDPS Act and other statutes, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in judicial proceedings.

Moreover, the Court’s scrutiny of technological conditions and diplomatic assurances reflects a nuanced understanding of modern legal challenges, ensuring that legal frameworks evolve in line with constitutional values. This decision serves as a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence, reinforcing the supremacy of individual rights in the face of legal obligations, and affirming the judiciary’s role in safeguarding liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Drafted By Saurav Yadav, student of School of Law and Legal Studies, Sanskriti University

Published on 18 July, 2024