October 21, 2026 01:17 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
‘Operation completed’: Tiger Shroff shooters allegedly alerted handlers after firing, probe reveals | 'I don't mind saying sorry 1,000 times': Sonu Nigam apologises to Kannadigas over ‘Pahalgam’ remark amid concert ban demand | After Vijay, is Dhanush eyeing politics? TVK calls Thalapathy an inspiration | Trump Says Paris Will Become ‘Muslim City Very Soon’, Blames Macron’s Immigration Policies | Four killed in fresh Manipur violence as protesters take bodies to Chief Minister’s residence | Tiger Shroff firing: Three accused arrested on train in Rajasthan, suspected Bishnoi gang link emerges | 'Internet access a fundamental right for children': SC rejects age-based 'blanket' ban | 'We will fight our own government': RG Kar victim's father threatens fresh protest after Sandip Ghosh gets bail | RG Kar shocker: Sandip Ghosh gets bail as only 7 of 147 witnesses examined, junior doctor blasts CBI | Trump waives Russia-related sanctions
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.