8 April 2024 9:08 AM GMT
In a case involving the question as to whether sharing of Google PIN with Investigating Officer as part of bail conditions violates a person's right to privacy, the Supreme Court today was informed that the appropriate authority to explain the working of Google PIN would be Google LLC, not Google India.
On the last date, without impleading it as a respondent, the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan 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 granting bail.
Today, a counsel appearing for Google LLC informed that the product is manufactured by Google LLC, not Google India. As such, it would be appropriate for Google LLC to respond to the Court's query. Google LLC's affidavit, it was said, had already been filed but not taken on record (as notice was issued to Google India).
Another counsel, appearing for Google India, also made a similar submission and apprised that requisite letter had been written to the Registry.
Taking note, the Bench issued formal notice to Google LLC and discharged Google India. It 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".
To state briefly, in the present case, the Court is examining two issues. First, whether bail to a foreign accused can be conditioned on obtaining an assurance from the concerned Embassy that they will not leave India. Second, whether a condition that the accused must share the Google PIN location with the investigating officer be imposed.
Case Title : Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 6339-6340/2023