Privacy vs. Surveillance: Location-Sharing as a Bail Condition Deemed Unconstitutional

In a significant ruling that reinforces the fundamental right to privacy, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has struck down a bail condition that required an accused to continuously share their live Google Maps location with the police. The Court held that such a condition is an excessive, unreasonable, and disproportionate infringement of the right to privacy, which was recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment. This decision is a critical check on the growing trend of using technology for surveillance of individuals on bail. 

Balancing Monitoring Needs with Fundamental Rights 

The judgment addresses the inherent tension between the legitimate need of the state to monitor undertrials to ensure they do not abscond or tamper with evidence, and the individual's fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and liberty. While courts have the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to impose conditions when granting bail, these conditions must be reasonable and must not be so onerous as to effectively negate the relief of bail itself.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court found that the condition of continuous live location sharing fails this test of reasonableness. It amounts to constant, 24/7 surveillance, which transforms the liberty granted by bail into a form of "virtual confinement." It allows the police to track every movement of the accused, effectively peeping into their private life, which is a severe violation of their privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a similar case, had also observed that such conditions defeat the very purpose of granting bail and can hamper an individual's right to privacy.

The Court's reasoning underscores a crucial principle: any restriction on a fundamental right must satisfy the test of proportionality. This means the restriction must have a legitimate aim, it must be rationally connected to that aim, there must not be a less intrusive alternative available, and there must be a proper balance between the importance of achieving the aim and the importance of limiting the right. The High Court concluded that constant digital surveillance is not the least intrusive measure available to ensure an accused's presence during trial. 

The Search for Less Intrusive Alternatives 

The ruling implicitly encourages the justice system to explore alternative, less intrusive methods and technologies for monitoring undertrials, where necessary. Some potential alternatives include: 

Periodic Reporting: A standard and widely used condition is requiring the accused to report to the local police station periodically (e.g., once a week or once a month). This ensures contact with the authorities without constant surveillance. 

Electronic Monitoring with Safeguards: While continuous GPS tracking was struck down, the use of electronic monitoring technologies like ankle bracelets could be considered in high-risk cases, but only if backed by a clear statutory framework and robust safeguards. Such a system, as recommended by some parliamentary committees for prison inmates, should ideally be based on the accused's consent and used as an alternative to incarceration, not as a routine bail condition.⁷⁷ 

Voice Sample Verification: In some cases, technology that allows for periodic voice verification via phone calls could be used to confirm the accused's presence within a particular jurisdiction without tracking their every move. 

Strengthening Sureties: Relying on the traditional system of sureties, who are legally responsible for ensuring the accused's presence in court, remains a valid and less intrusive method. 

This judgment from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, along with similar observations from the Supreme Court, sets a vital precedent. It sends a clear message to trial courts that in the digital age, the temptation to use technology for surveillance must be tempered by a firm commitment to constitutional rights. It ensures that the grant of bail is a meaningful restoration of liberty, not merely a shift from a physical prison to a digital one.