GPS Tracker Anklet: Monitoring Accused Individuals and the Legal Implications

November 14, 2023

In recent news, Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, accused of offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), was released on bail with a special condition imposed by a National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jammu – the affixing of a GPS tracker anklet to monitor his movements.

Understanding GPS Trackers

A GPS tracker is a small, wearable device akin to GPS collars used to track animals’ movements. It continuously provides the exact location of the wearer, allowing law enforcement and security agencies to monitor their real-time movements. The device is tamper-proof, triggering an alarm if any attempt at tampering is made. It cannot be removed without damage, ensuring its security.

Availability and Cost

GPS devices are readily available, with some individuals using them for pets and wildlife tracking. Newer automobiles often come equipped with built-in trackers for anti-theft purposes. These devices vary in quality and price, and basic GPS trackers can be purchased online for around Rs 1,000.

Why GPS Tracker for Ghulam Mohammad Bhat?

In Bhat’s case, the prosecution called for close monitoring of his movements while on bail and suggested GPS tracking as a bail condition. The use of GPS trackers is seen as a measure to curb activities like narco-smuggling and terrorism. It allows authorities to monitor whether the individual on bail is associating with active terrorists, engaging in narcotics assignments, or handling terror funds.

Legal Precedent and Concerns

GPS trackers as a precondition for bail are common in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia. However, in India, this technology’s use in such a manner is relatively new. Human rights activists have raised concerns regarding the absence of specific legal provisions for such tracking and the need for ethical standards in electronic monitoring.

Legal Position and Privacy Rights

The use of GPS anklets was sanctioned by a court in Bhat’s case, but the legal framework for this practice in India remains unclear. Activists argue that tracking individuals infringes upon their fundamental right to privacy. They emphasize that while public security is essential, fundamental rights must not be disregarded. The right to life includes the right to human dignity, as established by the Supreme Court in ‘Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India’ (1978).

Informed Consent and Ethical Procedures

The use of surveillance technology, including GPS trackers, raises concerns about over-regulation and human rights infringement. Advocates argue that a system of informed consent and procedures to address unethical and illegal practices is necessary to balance security concerns with individual rights.

« Previous Post Next Post »