‘Location Sharing’ As A Condition For Bail
Supreme Court’s directs that activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira should “pair” their mobile phones with that of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe officer as a condition for grant of their bail in the Bhima Koregaon case.
The SC ordered Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira Vernon to keep the location status of their mobile phones active 24 hours a day.
In another case, the Delhi High Court on Raman Bhurarua, an accused in a money-laundering case related to the Shakti Bhoj Foods bank fraud.
The High Court had required the accused to “drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that their location is available to the investigating officer.”
Is this condition will offend the fundamental rights of the accused?
The question is whether this condition will offend the rights of the accused under Article 21 [fundamental right to life] of the Constitution.
According to advocate Abhinav Sekhri “Location sharing is an undoubtedly intrusive practice which forces accused persons to barter their right to privacy for their liberty”
He said “No degree of fear in the minds of agencies can sanction a practice where a person remains under a panopticon of surveillance even when outside of prison. Courts can, and should, consider less intrusive means to secure state interests,”.
In 2021, the top court had lashed out against the imposition of “onerous” conditions for grant of bail, saying that such terms “tantamount to denial of bail”.
Data protection activist Anjali Bhardwaj said mobile phones today were an “extension of the self”, storing facts and facets of our personal lives.
COMMENTS