In a significant ruling strengthening digital privacy rights, the Delhi High Court has held that forcing an accused to share 24×7 live location with investigating agencies as a condition of bail is unconstitutional, illegal, and violates the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot turn into tools of intrusive surveillance.
Background of the Case
The decision came while hearing a plea challenging a trial court order that required an accused person to continuously share his real-time location using Google mapping services with the police. The High Court observed that such constant monitoring is disproportionate and fails the test of necessity and rationality expected while framing bail terms. Justice Vikas Mahajan, who delivered the order, stated that live tracking effectively places an individual under “virtual police custody,” defeating the very essence of bail.
The Court reiterated that the purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial, not to subject them to technological confinement. Continuous digital tracking without compelling justification amounts to surveillance that intrudes into an individual’s personal space, daily movements, and behaviour patterns — all of which fall within the protected zone of privacy under the landmark Puttaswamy judgment.
Instead of technology-based surveillance, the Court noted that traditional measures like reporting to police stations, sharing contact details, providing sureties, or travel restrictions are adequate and have been effective for decades. The judgment underlines that the State must not exploit modern surveillance tools in ways that compromise civil liberties under the guise of criminal procedure.
Impact and Legal Significance
This ruling is likely to shape future bail jurisprudence, especially as law-enforcement agencies increasingly rely on digital tracking and data collection. The judgment draws a clear line that digital tools cannot be imposed without strict legal safeguards. It also reinforces that constitutional rights do not get suspended simply because a person is under investigation.
The decision comes at a time when concerns around state surveillance, facial recognition, and data-tracking technologies are rapidly growing. By striking down this condition, the High Court has sent a strong message that privacy cannot be traded for bail, and constitutional guarantees must guide every stage of criminal proceedings.
