Archive · 28 Nov 2025
Delhi High Court Rules 24/7 Location Sharing as Bail Condition Unconstitutional
The Delhi High Court recently decided that a rule making a person on bail share their location all the time is not fair.
The court said this rule goes against the person's right to privacy, which is protected by the Constitution.
A lawyer argued that such a rule lets the police watch the person's every move, which is not right.
The court agreed and removed this condition.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had also said that courts cannot make such rules that let the police track the accused all the time.
The lawyer who argued this case said the court's decision is important because it protects the rights of people, even those accused of crimes, to have their privacy and freedom respected.
Delhi High Court ruled that 24/7 location sharing as a bail condition is unsustainable and violates the right to privacy.
Justice Vikas Mahajan agreed with the petitioner's argument that such conditions cannot be imposed by the sessions court.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau that continuous tracking of accused persons violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Delhi High Court order removed the condition requiring the petitioner to share their location 24/7 with the investigating officer.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa welcomed the verdict, stating that it reaffirms the importance of constitutional rights and personal liberty.
- Who
- Delhi High Court, Justice Vikas Mahajan, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, Petitioner (real-estate business)
- What
- Ruling that 24/7 location sharing as a bail condition is unsustainable and violates the right to privacy
- When
- Recent ruling, with reference to Supreme Court judgment on July 8, 2024
- Where
- Delhi High Court
- Why
- To uphold the right to privacy and prevent arbitrary surveillance of accused persons on bail
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Justice
- Vikas Mahajan
- Bail Condition
- 24/7 location sharing with investigating officer
- Supreme Court Case
- Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau
- Constitutional Right
- Right to privacy under Article 21
- Petitioner's Profession
- Real-estate business
- Significance
- Reaffirms constitutional rights and personal liberty