July 16, 2026 07:26 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Why introduce a new language in Class 9?' Supreme Court questions Centre's policy | 'Save Sonam Wangchuk's life': Delhi High Court to Centre as hunger strike enters Day 19 | Atul Kulkarni observes one-day fast in support of Sonam Wangchuk, urges Centre to initiate dialogue | Argentina stun England with late rally to storm into FIFA World Cup 2026 final | 'He could die in two days': Delhi HC plea seeks force-feeding of Sonam Wangchuk as fast enters Day 18 | 'Tonight's defeat is hard to take': Emmanuel Macron reacts after France crash out of World Cup, congratulates Spain | Spain cruise past France to storm into FIFA World Cup 2026 final with clinical 2-0 victory | Taslima Nasrin announces Kolkata return after 20 years to attend literary event at Rabindra Sadan | 'We must not watch one of our greatest minds be sacrificed': Zeenat Aman backs Sonam Wangchuk, urges govt to open dialogue | 'I don't want Phunsukh Wangdu to die': '3 Idiots' star Omi Vaidya's emotional appeal for Sonam Wangchuk
Google
Photo Courtesy: Pixabay

SC asks Google to explain whether live location sharing by accused violates his right to privacy

| @indiablooms | Apr 09, 2024, at 02:45 am

New Delhi/IBNS: The Supreme Court Monday sought Google LLC’s response on the vital issue of whether a condition of sharing the live location is imposed on an accused while granting bail violates the person's right to privacy.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on the last date had directed Google India to file an affidavit along with the necessary documents explaining the working of Google PIN in the context of putting a condition in the order while granting bail.

Google India informed the Supreme Court that the product is manufactured by Google LLC, not by them (Google India). It suggested that it would be appropriate for Google LLC to respond to the court's query.

Google LLC had filed an affidavit before the apex court but it was not taken on record (as notice was issued to Google India).

After noting that Google LLC was not a party in the present case, The bench issued formal notice to Google LLC and discharged Google India.

The bench further directed the Registry to take on record Google LLC's affidavit and said, "We will go through the affidavit and then hear the parties."

In the present case, the court is examining two issues. First, if a foreign national is arrested in India and at the time of granting bail to him, the courts have two options while granting bail to him.

The foreign accused can be granted bail on obtaining an assurance from the concerned Embassy that they will not leave India.

Second, whether the condition that the Google PIN location should be shared by the accused with the investigating officer be imposed, and whether this condition violates the basic issue of the right to privacy or not.

[with UNI inputs]

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.