Source:  Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court's recent judgement in the matter of Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau addressed the legality of bail conditions that required accused individuals to share their location via Google Maps, arguing that such conditions infringed upon the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.  

• The case challenging these stringent conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court.  
• The decision underscored the importance of balancing bail restrictions with constitutional rights, particularly concerning foreign nationals facing legal proceedings in India. 

What was the Background of Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau? 

• Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national, was accused in a drugs case and sought bail. 
• In 2022, the Delhi High Court granted interim bail with two controversial conditions: 
  • The accused must place a pin on Google Maps visible to the Investigating Officer 
  • The accused must obtain a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission promising not to leave India and to appear in court 
• Vitus filed a special leave to appeal petition in the Supreme Court challenging these bail conditions. 
• The Supreme Court initially asked Google India to explain how the Google PIN feature works in relation to bail conditions. 
• After excusing Google India, the court directed Google LLC to clarify the workings of Google PIN. 
• On 29th April, after reviewing Google LLC's affidavit, Justice Oka found the Google PIN condition "superfluous" and potentially violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The NCB, represented by ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, argued that the Google PIN condition helps track the accused's location. 
• The case raised important questions about privacy rights and reasonable bail conditions, especially for foreign nationals accused in India. 
• The court focused on two main issues: 
  • Whether requiring an accused to share Google PIN location with investigators is a valid bail condition. 
  • Whether bail for foreign nationals can be conditioned on obtaining assurances from their Embassy about not leaving India. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that bail conditions cannot defeat the very objective of bail by enabling constant surveillance of the accused even if used previously by the court. 
• It was observed that bail conditions permitting continuous tracking of an accused's movements would violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court opined that imposing conditions allowing constant vigilance on an accused released on bail effectively amounts to a form of confinement, which is antithetical to the purpose of bail. 
• The judgment emphasized that the presumption of innocence applies to an accused until proven guilty, and they cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights under Article 21. 
• While acknowledging that courts may impose certain restrictive conditions such as periodic reporting or travel limitations, the Court held that requiring constant disclosure of movements to police is impermissible. 
• The Court determined that the condition of dropping a PIN on Google Maps was redundant and ineffective for real-time tracking, based on information provided by Google LLC. 
• The Court observed that the impugned condition was incorporated without considering its technical implications or relevance as a bail condition. 
• Regarding foreign nationals, the Court held that making bail conditional on obtaining assurances from their Embassy about non-departure from India is not mandatory in all cases. 
• The judgment emphasized the need for restraint in imposing bail conditions, stating that an accused's freedom can only be curtailed to the extent required by law for imposing warranted bail conditions. 
• The Court reiterated that bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. 

What is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution? 

Legal Provision: 

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. 
• It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 

Key Aspect of Article 21: 

• Fundamental Right: It's part of the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution. 
• Scope:  
  • Protects both 'life' and 'personal liberty' 
  • Applies to all persons, not just citizens 
• Interpretation: The Supreme Court has given a very wide interpretation to this article, expanding its scope far beyond its literal meaning. 
• Right to Life: Includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, such as:  
  • Right to basic necessities of life 
  • Right to health 
  • Right to education 
  • Right to clean environment 
  • Right to shelter 
  • Right to livelihood 
• Personal Liberty: Includes various freedoms, such as:  
  • Freedom of movement 
  • Right to privacy 
  • Right against solitary confinement 
  • Right to speedy trial 
  • Right against handcuffing 
  • Right to choose one's place of residence 
  • Right to pursue any lawful occupation or profession 
• Procedure Established by Law: Any deprivation of life or liberty must be according to the procedure established by law. 
  • The procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable 
• Due Process: Through judicial interpretation, the concept of 'due process' has been read into Article 21, meaning that the procedure must not only be prescribed by law but also be just, fair, and reasonable. 
• Extended: The protection under Article 21 extends to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, within the territory of India. 
•  While the rights under Article 21 are fundamental, they are not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the state. 
• The burden of proving that the deprivation of life or personal liberty is in accordance with the procedure established by law rests upon the state. 
• Article 21 serves as a bulwark against arbitrary state action and forms the basis for the evolution of various ancillary rights through judicial pronouncements. 

Important Case Law Related to Article 21: 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Initial narrow interpretation of "personal liberty" as mere freedom from physical restraint. 
• R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970): Expanded "personal liberty" to include freedoms under Article 19(1). 
• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): Further broadened "personal liberty" to encompass rights under Article 19(1). 
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Landmark judgment expanding Article 21 to include right to live with dignity. Established that procedure under Article 21 must be "fair, just and reasonable." 
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognized right to livelihood as integral to right to life under Article 21. 
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Held right to safe working environment as fundamental right under Article 21. Established guidelines for sexual harassment at workplace. 
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014): Extended Article 21 protections to transgender persons, recognizing their right to self-identification. 
• Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja (2014): Extended Article 21 protections to animals, invoking doctrine of 'parens patriae' and Article 51A(g). 
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): Legalized passive euthanasia, recognizing the right to die with dignity under Article 21. 
•  A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982): Upheld National Security Act, stating principles of natural justice not universally applicable under Article 21. 

Important Case Law Related to Right to Privacy under Article 21: 

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017):  
  • The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court recognized privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. 
  • It established that any invasion of privacy must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. 
• Malak Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana (1981):  
  • While this case predates the explicit recognition of privacy as a fundamental right, it touched upon surveillance issues. 
  • The Court held that surveillance should be unobtrusive and within the bounds of reasonableness. 
• People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997):  
  • This case dealt with telephone tapping and surveillance. 
  • The Court held that telephone tapping is a serious invasion of privacy and should only be done under strict statutory safeguards. 
• Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (2011):  
  • While primarily about black money, this case touched upon the right to privacy. 
  • The Court observed that the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life. 
• Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975):  
  • This case, while predating the explicit recognition of privacy as a fundamental right, discussed the concept of privacy rights. 
  • The Court recognized that privacy-dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior. 

What are the Important Case Laws Related to Bail Condition that Accused Should Share Google Location Violates Right to Privacy? 

• Directorate of Enforcement v. Raman Bhuraria (2023): 
  • The Supreme Court orally remarked that imposing a bail condition requiring an accused to drop his Google pin location from his mobile phone to the Investigation Officer concerned throughout the period of his bail, is prima facie violative of his right to privacy. 

What are the Important Case Laws Related to the Principle of Presumption of Innocence and the Protection of Constitutional Rights for Accused Persons under Article 21? 

• State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977):  
  • Justice Krishna Iyer famously stated, "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail." 
  • This underscored the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty of an accused person. 
• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011):  
  • The Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. 
  • It emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with societal interests while considering bail applications. 
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980):  
  • This case dealt with anticipatory bail but emphasized the presumption of innocence. 
  • The Court held that the right to bail is directly linked to Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020):  
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one too many. 
  • It reiterated the importance of bail as a rule and the need to protect personal liberty. 
• Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2017):  
  • While dealing with the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a human right. 
• Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012):  
  • The Court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 
  • It emphasized that denying bail as a punitive measure would be contrary to the concept of presumption of innocence. 
• State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011):  
  • The Supreme Court held that bail should be granted where the accused can show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence.