September 02, 2026 08:29 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
CJP calls off Sept 5 Delhi march after Supreme Court quashes FIRs against protesters | ‘Dismantle entire terror ecosystem’: Modi’s strong message at SCO Summit in Shehbaz’s presence | Modi’s big appeal after 7.8% GDP growth: ‘Don’t travel abroad, avoid destination weddings’ | Modi-Pezeshkian talks: Iran seeks India’s 'extensive contacts' to end West Asia war | Indus Waters Treaty row: India rejects Hague court order, says ‘no jurisdiction’ over its sovereign decisions | India beats the odds with 7.8% GDP growth; PM Modi has a message for critics | PM Modi meets Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian during SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan | ‘Islam superior to all religions’: Karnataka minister’s remark sparks BJP-Congress war; resignation demand grows | PM Modi meets Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian during SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan | VHP breaks silence on Durga Puja ‘guidelines’: No blanket non-veg ban, clarifies stand on theme pandals amid backlash
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.