October 12, 2026 11:33 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Undeclared Emer-GenZ': Shashi Tharoor slams Delhi curbs over CJP protests, calls internet shutdown 'most regressive' | ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’: CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke dares Delhi Police to arrest him, says ‘We are not afraid’ | CJP protest crackdown? Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka detained from inside flight | Dhruv Rathee detained ahead of CJP protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as Delhi goes on high alert | ‘Restriction, not complete closure’: Supreme Court questions Delhi shutdown ahead of CJP protest | 'Unwarranted': India hits back at JD Vance over ‘indentured servants’ remark amid US Green Card crackdown | US targets Microsoft, Infosys, Tata in green card crackdown | ‘Bold and inventive’: Canadian poet Anne Carson wins 2026 Nobel Prize in Literature | ‘Attempt to destabilise world’s largest democracy’: 42 retired judges rally behind Gyanesh Kumar over ‘vote chori’ row | ‘Vote chor, gaddi chod’: Dhruv Rathee, Prakash Raj join Bengaluru protest against Gyanesh Kumar
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.