The Right to Privacy and Bail Conditions in India raise an essential constitutional question. Personal liberty and the Right to Privacy are akin to human rights available to all since birth.

Principally, Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates personal liberty for every citizen. The moot question, however, remains — whether this principle of privacy applies to undertrial prisoners while in judicial custody.

Bail and Its Conditional Nature under Article 21

Although the Supreme Court of India regularly reiterates the principle of “bail and not jail,” getting bail remains a difficult affair for undertrials.
In some cases where bail is granted, it often comes with conditions such as monetary deposits, surrender of passports, restrictions on travel, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

The learned judge decides the conditions of bail at their discretion.
For related reading: Why a 150-Year-Old Law is Stalling Modern Contracts

Debate on Conditional Bail and Privacy

Opinions differ on the necessity of imposing bail conditions.
One school of thought believes bail should be unconditional, while others argue that conditional bail ensures compliance and deters misconduct.

Despite stringent conditions, many undertrials have tampered with evidence or jumped bail, leaving authorities searching for them for years.

Technology and Bail Conditions in India

A recent Delhi High Court case addressed whether real-time location sharing violates the Right to Privacy.
The accused challenged a bail condition requiring them to share their live GPS location with the Investigating Officer, calling it a violation of privacy.

Technology is transforming India’s justice delivery — from online hearings and e-filing of petitions to digital evidence recording.
If technology can ensure speed and transparency, why not use it for real-time monitoring of undertrial prisoners?

Privacy of Undertrial Accused: Balancing Liberty and Law

When a person enters judicial custody, certain rights — including freedom of movement and privacy — are lawfully restricted.
This limitation continues even on bail until exoneration by a competent court.

Law evolves with technology and social change. Integrating real-time monitoring in bail conditions could ensure compliance without excessive state expenditure.

For authoritative context, read about Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty (Wikipedia).

The Case for Technological Bail Monitoring

If conditional bail is necessary and technology can ensure compliance cost-effectively, there is no reason to avoid its use.
Tracking an undertrial’s live location costs far less than launching expensive manhunts for absconding accused.

The balance of convenience lies in favor of technological supervision rather than unrestricted privacy.
If CCTV cameras can monitor inmates in prisons, why can’t real-time GPS tracking ensure lawful compliance outside?

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India will determine whether real-time tracking infringes privacy or serves as a necessary instrument of justice.
The debate over the Right to Privacy and Bail Conditions in India continues to shape the evolving relationship between law, liberty, and technology.

By Advocate Mamta Shukla, Supreme Court of India
Co-Founder, Vijay Foundation
(Views expressed are purely personal.)