Judicial Interpretation Of Gps Tracking Evidence
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Right to Privacy Context
Background: Though primarily a privacy case, the Court considered GPS and electronic tracking under surveillance mechanisms.
Observation: The Supreme Court held that tracking an individual’s location without consent violates Article 21 (Right to Privacy). Any GPS-based evidence obtained through unauthorized tracking may not be admissible in court.
Significance: Established that GPS tracking evidence must be legally authorized, especially when it involves personal devices or vehicles. Courts cannot rely on evidence collected via unlawful surveillance.
2. State of Karnataka v. Shrinivas (2018)
Background: In a criminal investigation, the police used GPS data from the accused’s vehicle to establish his movements on the day of the crime.
Observation: The Karnataka High Court held that GPS tracking data is admissible as circumstantial evidence, provided it is collected using proper procedure and with authentication from the device owner or via lawful authority.
Significance: This judgment clarified that GPS data can establish presence, movement, or alibi, but courts must ensure the chain of custody and reliability of the device.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Shaikh (2020)
Background: The accused challenged GPS evidence obtained from his mobile device, claiming it was accessed without his consent.
Observation: The Bombay High Court reiterated that evidence from GPS tracking is admissible only if obtained in accordance with legal safeguards. Unauthorized tracking or tampering with the device makes the evidence inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that digital and GPS evidence must satisfy both procedural and substantive legality requirements.
4. Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala (2019)
Background: The case involved a dispute over the movement of a stolen vehicle, where GPS data from a tracking device installed in the car was used to trace its location.
Observation: The Kerala High Court held that GPS evidence from vehicles or personal devices is reliable if corroborated by other forms of evidence such as CCTV footage, witness testimony, or call records.
Significance: Courts often treat GPS evidence as circumstantial but highly persuasive, especially when supported by independent evidence.
5. Supreme Court Observation in Cybercrime Investigations (2021)
Background: The Supreme Court in multiple cases dealing with cybercrime and mobile tracking emphasized the use of GPS logs from smartphones for establishing timelines.
Observation: The Court ruled that GPS data is admissible if obtained from authenticated sources, such as telecom operators or device manufacturers, and with proper authorization under IT Act or criminal procedure.
Significance: Highlighted that GPS evidence can establish movement, location, and activity patterns, but procedural safeguards and privacy compliance are mandatory.
Key Judicial Principles Regarding GPS Evidence
Consent and Legal Authorization: GPS tracking evidence is only admissible if obtained with consent or under legal authority.
Circumstantial Evidence: Courts often treat GPS data as corroborative, not standalone, unless supported by other evidence.
Authentication & Integrity: Devices must be authenticated, and the chain of custody must be maintained.
Privacy Considerations: Unauthorized GPS tracking can violate Article 21 (Right to Privacy) and render evidence inadmissible.
Reliability: Courts verify the technical reliability of GPS devices, ensuring no tampering or manipulation occurred.
RELATED Blog
0 comments