“No bail conditions allowing police surveillance”: SC on protecting privacy
The bench also held that no court can impose bail conditions that frustrate the purpose of granting bail itself
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that bail conditions enabling the police to constantly track an accused’s movements and invade their privacy are unconstitutional.
This decision came while setting aside a bail condition that required the accused to share their Google Maps location with the police.
A bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that such conditions infringe on the right to privacy.
The bench also held that no court can impose bail conditions that frustrate the purpose of granting bail itself.
“We have said in the judgment that here can’t be a bail condition that defeats the purpose of the bail itself... although it was told to us that Google pin is innocuous, we have said that no condition can be imposed that can virtually peep into the private life of accused,” said justice Oka, reading out the judgment.
The detailed judgment will be out later in the day.
The judgment marks an important clarification, as various courts, including different benches of the Supreme Court, have previously imposed the sharing of Google Maps pins as a bail condition.
Also Read: Sharing Google location can’t be ground for granting bail, says SC
During a previous hearing of the matter in April, the bench had disapproved of this practice.
“Ultimately, it’s technology. We don’t know how it will be used. But this condition should not be imposed. It (Google Maps pin) can’t be a condition of bail,” said the bench on April 29, adding that the primary function of a location pin is navigation or location identification, which may not effectively monitor compliance with bail terms and could be misused.
This ruling stems from a petition challenging a Delhi high court order that granted bail to a Nigerian national, an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The high court had set two stringent conditions: the accused had to drop a Google Maps pin to ensure their location was available to the investigating officer, and the Nigerian high commission had to assure that the accused would not leave the country and would appear before the trial court as required.
In July 2023, the Supreme Court had expressed concerns that the condition of sharing a Google Maps pin could prima facie affect the privacy rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court remarked that tracking an accused’s movements after they have been granted bail with reasonable conditions could undermine their right to privacy.
Subsequently, in August 2023, the Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to file an affidavit detailing the technical aspects and consequences of using a Google Maps pin.
MeitY’s affidavit, filed in February, did not provide a comprehensive explanation of the technical aspects or the extent of surveillance involved. Instead, it suggested that Google India Pvt Ltd would be better placed to provide these details. Following this, the court asked Google India to file an affidavit explaining the technology behind Google Maps pins and the scope of surveillance it enables.
In April, the Supreme Court had indicated its intention to pass a judgment to end the practice of requiring accused persons to share their Google Maps locations as a bail condition. During a hearing, the bench stressed that such a condition could infringe the individual’s right to privacy and be misused. Google India’s submissions stated that a location pin is “innocuous” and primarily a tool for navigation, further supporting the argument against its use for monitoring bail conditions.
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court not only sets aside the two stringent bail conditions but also grants interim bail to the accused in the NDPS case.
This decision is a significant step in safeguarding the privacy rights of individuals while ensuring that bail conditions remain reasonable and just.


