Image used for representational purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday held that bail conditions allowing an investigating agency to continuously track the movements of an accused violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, which deleted a bail condition imposed on Nigerian national Frank Vitus in a drugs case that mandated him to drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that his location is available to the investigation officer of the case, said this court has held that bail conditions cannot be “fanciful, arbitrary or freakish”.

The bench said, “The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21.” It said if a constant vigil is kept on every movement of the accused released on bail by the use of technology or otherwise, it will infringe the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, including the right to privacy.

“The reason is that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on the accused by imposing drastic bail conditions will amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is released on bail. Such a condition cannot be a condition of bail,” it said.

The bench said imposing any bail condition which enables the police/investigation agency to track every movement of the accused released on bail by using any technology or otherwise would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21.

“In this case, the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps has been incorporated without even considering the technical effect of dropping a PIN and the relevance of the said condition as a condition of bail. This cannot be a condition of bail. The condition deserves to be deleted and ordered accordingly,” it said.

The court said in the case at hand, it is dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established and so long as he is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence is applicable.

“He cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. The courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for imposing the bail conditions warranted by law,” the bench said in its order, which was reserved on April 29.

Underscoring that bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself, the bench said the court may impose a condition of periodically reporting to the police station/court or not travelling abroad without prior permission.

“Where circumstances require, the court may impose a condition restraining an accused from entering a particular area to protect the prosecution witnesses or the victims. But the court cannot impose a condition on the accused to keep the police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another. The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail,” it said.

The top court said the accused is bound by the conditions imposed while granting bail and if he, after being enlarged on bail, commits a breach of bail conditions or commits any offence, the courts always have the power to cancel the bail.

“A condition cannot be imposed while granting bail which is impossible for the accused to comply with. If such a condition is imposed, it will deprive an accused of bail, though he is otherwise entitled to it,” it said.

It added that the object of imposing conditions of bail is to ensure that the accused does not interfere or obstruct the investigation in any manner, remains available for the investigation, does not tamper with or destroy evidence, does not commit any offence, remains regularly present before the trial court, and does not create obstacles in the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

“The courts have imposed a condition that the accused should cooperate with the investigation when bail is granted before filing the final report or charge sheet. Cooperating with the investigation does not mean that the accused must confess,” it said, adding that the bail conditions must be consistent with the object of imposing conditions.

While imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused, who is ordered to be released on bail, can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required, it said.

“Even an accused convicted by a competent Court and undergoing a sentence in prison is not deprived of all his rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench pointed out.

The top court also deleted another condition imposed on Victus by the Delhi High Court that he will have to obtain a certificate from the Embassy/High Commission of Nigeria that he shall not leave the country and shall appear before the court as and when required in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case.

Victus was arrested on May 21, 2014 in the case and was released on bail on May 31, 2022 subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order.

He moved the Supreme Court challenging the twin conditions imposed by the high court – sharing of Google PIN location with the investigating officer and obtaining a certificate from the embassy. 

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Bilaspur:

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that recording the mobile phone conversation of a person without her knowledge amounts to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 and set aside a family court’s order.

The HC observed that the husband recording his wife’s phone conversation without her knowledge amounts to a violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.

The high court was hearing a petition moved by a woman challenging a family court’s order allowing her husband’s application in a maintenance case pending since 2019.

The woman, 38, had moved an application for a grant of maintenance from her husband, 44, in the family court in Mahasamund district.

The husband moved the family court seeking re-examination of his wife on the ground that certain conversation was recorded on the mobile phone and he wants to cross-examine the petitioner and confront her with the conversation recorded on the mobile phone.

The family court in an order dated October 21, 2021, allowed the man’s application, following which the woman approached the High Court in 2022 challenging the family court’s order, her lawyer Vaibhav A. Goverdhan said.

The husband was trying to prove before the family court through mobile conversation that his wife was committing adultery and hence he need not have to pay maintenance to her once they are divorced, he said.

During the hearing in the HC, the woman’s counsel submitted that the family court had committed an error of law by allowing the application as it infringed on the right of privacy of the petitioner, and without her knowledge, the conversation was recorded by her husband and the same cannot be used against her.

He quoted some judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

On October 5, High Court Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey set aside the verdict of the family court.

“It appears that the respondent (husband) has recorded the conversation of the petitioner (wife) without her knowledge behind her back which amounts to the violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution of India,” the HC noted.

“Further, the right of privacy is an essential component of the right to life envisaged by article 21, therefore, in the opinion of this court, the learned family court has committed an error of law in allowing the application under section 311 of the CrPC along with the certificate issued under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned family court is hereby set aside,” it added.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Rajeev Chandrasekhar. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

Entities may be given about a year to tune their systems to comply with norms of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Minister of State for Electronics and IT Rajeev Chandrasekhar said on September 20.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of consultation with the industry, Mr. Chandrasekhar said the Data Protection Board and guidelines for the eight rules, including consent management, will be put in place within a month.

Explained | What is the Data Protection Bill of 2023?

“Industry wants some more time for age-gating, different timelines for transition for different data fiduciaries. We expect transition for most of the rules except age-gating will happen in 12 months from now,” the Minister said.

The consultation was attended by about 125 people representing various companies, including Meta, Lenovo, Dell, Netflix, among others.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which comes after six years of the Supreme Court declaring ‘Right to Privacy’ as a fundamental right, has provisions to curb the misuse of individuals’ data by online platforms.

The Act seeks to protect the privacy of Indian citizens while proposing a penalty of up to ₹250 crore on entities for misusing or failing to protect the digital data of individuals.

The Act mandates that the data collected by citizens should be used as per law, only for the purpose for which it has been collected, and the quantum of data should be limited to the requirement.

In case of any grievances, individuals will be able to approach the Data Protection Board which will process the complaint as per the norms of the Act.

“We will start putting in place most of the rules for compliance in the next 5-6 days. Most of the rules will be placed within 30 days. The Data Protection Board will also be in place in 30 days,” Mr. Chandrasekhar said.