Sharing Google PIN location as a bail condition violates the Right to Privacy, Supreme Court asks Google India to explain its working

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing an appeal filed by Nigerian National Frank Vitus, accused in a drug case, against certain conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court while granting interim bail to him. In 2022, the HC as a condition for the grant of bail ordered the accused and co-accused to drop a PIN on Google Maps to ensure the availability of their location to the Investigation Officer. Frank Vitus filed an appeal contending that such a condition infringes his right to privacy. The SC bench constituting Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed disapproval over the imposed stringent bail conditions. In this context, the bench asked Google India to explain the working of Google PIN to examine whether it violates the right to privacy when an accused is made to share a location as a condition for bail.

The SC bench issued a notice, returnable on April 8, 2024, to Google India Private Limited to file an affidavit along with necessary documents explaining the working of Google PIN in the context of putting a condition in the order granting bail. The bench also clarified that it is not impleading Google India as a party to the case stating that “We make it clear that we are not impleading Google India Private Limited as a party respondent. But we are issuing notice to the said company for the purposes of obtaining information from the said company regarding working of Google PIN.” 

Another issue addressed by the SC during the proceedings was regarding furnishing assurance from the Embassy. It stated that “Prima facie, we are of the view that such onerous condition cannot be put as no Embassy will be in a position to give such assurance. Therefore, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail on the terms and conditions incorporated in the impugned order except for the condition regarding dropping a PIN on the Google map and obtaining assurance from the High Commission of Nigeria.” At last, the SC clarified that the petitioner should be released on interim bail by furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50 thousand and not Rs. 2 Lakhs as directed by the High Court.