Case Studies On Gps Tracking And Wearable Device Monitoring
While India’s jurisprudence is still evolving in this domain, there are several Indian and comparative (especially U.S.) case laws that courts have relied upon or discussed while addressing GPS and wearable surveillance. Below is a detailed explanation of more than five case studies/judgments related to GPS tracking and wearable monitoring, focusing on privacy, legality, and constitutional implications.
🔹 1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
(Right to Privacy – Foundation for GPS and Wearable Surveillance Jurisprudence)
✅ Facts:
A challenge to the Aadhaar scheme led to a broader question: Does the Indian Constitution protect the right to privacy?
✅ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Any surveillance, including GPS tracking or wearable devices, must meet the test of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
✅ Significance:
All GPS or wearable surveillance must be authorized by law, with safeguards.
Introduced the three-fold test (legality, necessity, proportionality).
Forms the constitutional basis for all future discussions on electronic monitoring.
🔹 2. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
(Proportionality in Surveillance Measures – Internet/GPS Shutdown)
✅ Facts:
The government imposed a communication lockdown (internet and GPS-based apps) in Jammu & Kashmir citing security threats.
✅ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that any restriction on communication or tracking services (including GPS-based) must be proportional to the threat posed and subject to periodic judicial review.
✅ Significance:
Indirectly deals with surveillance through disruption of GPS-based tech.
Highlights need for judicial oversight and transparency in technology-related surveillance.
Applies directly to cases involving wearable GPS monitors for parolees or suspects.
🔹 3. PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
(Phone Tapping and Surveillance – Applicability to GPS Tracking)
✅ Facts:
This case challenged telephone tapping as a violation of privacy.
✅ Judgment:
The Court held that surveillance (even without physical intrusion) affects the right to privacy and is only valid if backed by procedure established by law.
✅ Significance:
Though about phone tapping, principles apply to GPS/wearable monitoring.
Any tracking must be statutorily authorized, time-bound, and subject to review.
Surveillance without legal backing = unconstitutional.
🔹 4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar-II Judgment) (2019)
(Data Collection and Profiling Through Technology)
✅ Facts:
Challenge to Aadhaar’s mandatory linking with services like mobile numbers and bank accounts.
✅ Judgment:
The Supreme Court warned against state-enabled data profiling, including location and movement tracking, unless there’s justified legal basis.
✅ Significance:
GPS and wearable data collection is a form of profiling.
Unauthorised or mass surveillance violates privacy.
Any monitoring via wearable tech must satisfy due process.
🔹 5. U.S. Supreme Court: Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. (2018)
(Location Data from Cell Phones – Comparative Constitutional Insight)
✅ Facts:
Police obtained 127 days of GPS-based location records of a suspect without a warrant from mobile service providers.
✅ Judgment:
Held that accessing historical location data without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment (right against unlawful search and seizure).
✅ Significance for Indian context:
Highly persuasive in Indian courts post-Puttaswamy.
Long-term GPS surveillance without consent or court order is a privacy violation.
Serves as a guideline for using wearable GPS devices in investigations or parole.
🔹 6. Indian Bail Cases Using GPS/Wearables – Recent High Court Observations
While not yet codified in the Supreme Court, some High Courts in India have started permitting or suggesting GPS-enabled wearable devices (like ankle bracelets) as conditions for bail, especially in:
White-collar crimes
Sexual assault cases
Repeat offenders
Key principles applied:
Consent of the accused.
Judicial supervision.
Must be least intrusive measure possible.
Subject to review after a specified time.
Example:
Delhi HC (2022) granted bail to a foreign national on the condition that he wears a GPS tracking device, citing flight risk.
🔹 7. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
(Involuntary Use of Technology in Criminal Proceedings)
✅ Facts:
The issue was whether brain-mapping, narco-tests, and polygraph tests without consent are legal.
✅ Judgment:
The Court held that such involuntary monitoring violates Article 20(3) (self-incrimination) and Article 21.
✅ Significance for Wearables:
Any non-consensual wearable device or tracking that extracts physical/mental data could be challenged under this ruling.
Reinforces informed consent and voluntariness in surveillance technologies.
🔹 Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy is Fundamental | GPS/wearable monitoring must comply with Article 21 | Puttaswamy (2017) |
| Surveillance Needs Legal Backing | Cannot be done arbitrarily or via executive order alone | PUCL (1997) |
| Consent is Crucial | Use of bodily-invasive or constant-monitoring devices needs consent | Selvi (2010) |
| Proportionality Required | Surveillance must match the threat and have safeguards | Anuradha Bhasin (2020) |
| Warrants Needed for Tracking | Long-term or invasive tracking requires judicial authorization | Carpenter (U.S. 2018) (persuasive) |
🔹 Conclusion
The legal framework around GPS tracking and wearable surveillance is evolving in India. The Supreme Court has laid down foundational principles—especially around privacy, proportionality, consent, and legality—that must govern any use of such technology.
While specific laws are still catching up, courts have consistently cautioned against mass or arbitrary surveillance, and have insisted that such technology can only be used with strict constitutional safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments