June 22, 2026 01:10 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Italy and I never beg': Meloni fires back at Trump over G7 photo claim | No more 'brother': Stalin's formal birthday greeting to Rahul reflects deepening rift | TMC seeks disqualification of 20 rebel MPs, Abhishek says 'membership should go' | Nara Lokesh pitches Andhra Pradesh as investment hub during Kolkata visit, sets $2.4 trillion economy goal | 'Least restrictive option': Setback for Telegram as Delhi HC backs Centre's ban ahead of NEET-UG re-test | Fortuner torched, BJP leaders burnt alive: Sand mining feud ends in triple murder in Chhattisgarh | 'If Modi is the leader and India is attacked, we'll be there': Trump's strong assurance at G7 | 'Safety of Indian seafarers of utmost importance': PM Modi's strong message to Trump at G7 | Trump says Iran deal 'not final', threatens fresh strikes if Tehran ‘doesn’t behave’ | G7 declares war on global drug cartels, unveils major anti-trafficking plan
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.