Font size:
Print
SC liberalises bail conditions on Freedom of Movement
Context:
The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot require accused persons to share their location on Google Maps as a bail condition and cannot demand foreign nationals to obtain a “certificate of assurance” from their Embassies or High Commissions to prevent them from leaving the country.
The rationale for liberalising Bail Conditions:
- Any bail condition allowing the police or investigation agency to track an accused person’s movements using technology or other means would violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21. Police cannot intervene in the private life of the accused during their bail.
- Regarding the “certificate of assurance,” the court ruled that it is beyond the accused’s control to obtain one if the Embassy does not issue the certificate in a reasonable time.
- The Supreme Court has also ruled that bail conditions should not frustrate the very purpose of granting bail.
Constitutional Provisions:
Under Article 19(1)(d) all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India;
However:
Article 19(5) (d) does not affect existing laws or prevent the State from enacting laws that impose reasonable restrictions on the rights they confer, either in the :
- Interests of the general public, eg. Lockdown during COVID
- Freedom of movement of prostitutes on the grounds of public health as stated in the State of UP vs Kaushalya case (1964).
- To protect the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.eg safeguard given under Forest Right ACT 2006.
- The government can restrict the movement of citizens in certain areas for public order or security reasons (Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978).