5 min readMumbaiUpdated: Jul 23, 2026 04:23 PM IST
Protesters in Mumbai, who are seeking education reforms, have alleged that police have been attempting to dissuade people from turning up to demonstrations, including by asking them to share their live location. The allegations have sparked criticism of the police and raised concerns on whether there is a legal obligation to share live location in such a scenario.
Here’s a look at what happened and whether this is permitted in law.
What’s happening in Mumbai?
Like the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest in Delhi, Mumbai too has been seeing demonstrations over the last few days seeking educational reforms and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Police have cracked down on the demonstrations with large-scale detentions as well as notices to participants.
Amid this, one woman shared screenshots of a WhatsApp conversation with a senior police inspector of a police station in Mumbai. The policeman allegedly told the woman to “kindly stay home today”, asking her not to leave her residence, stating that there was nothing to worry and that it was just a “precautionary measure”.
The policeman then allegedly told the woman to share her live location and keep it on. The officer told her that this was to ensure that she does not do “anything stupid” which will “ruin your career”.
Others have also claimed that they had received similar instructions.
The Mumbai Police has not officially responded to these claims yet. A senior Mumbai Police officer, requesting anonymity, told The Indian Express that this was done to ensure that youngsters, “who do not understand the gravity of having an FIR filed against them”, do not “play with their future”.
Story continues below this ad
What does the law say about sharing live location?
The police personnel’s defence was that it was being asked as a “precautionary measure”.
Mumbai currently has prohibitory orders, with apprehensions that there is “likelihood of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility” and “grave danger to human lives and loss of properties’.
But the relevant sections of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, under which a prohibitory order is issued, gives the police no power to seek the live location of a person to track if they are going to any gathering. Section 37 of the Act specifies prohibited activities but such powers are not included in it.
Lawyers who approached the police said such a request by police was not legal, citing the Right to Privacy. In 2017, in a landmark judgment by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in K Puttaswamy vs Union of India, it was ruled that privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection of life and personal liberty).
Story continues below this ad
Lawyers said putting such restrictions on protestors by telling them not to visit certain areas violated their freedom to move freely, which is enshrined under Article 19.
While fundamental rights also come with reasonable restrictions, these have to be lawful and followed with proper procedure, lawyers said. Those asked to share their live location were not named in any FIRs, nor was there any order requiring them to be restricted.
What have courts said about sharing of live location?
Various courts have in the past imposed bail conditions on accused including a requirement to share their phone GPS location. The Delhi High Court had in 2020 spoken of introducing technological advancements to keep track of accused while granting bail, if there was any apprehension of them escaping. In 2022, a Nigerian citizen booked in a drugs case was granted bail by the Delhi High Court with one of the conditions being that he must drop a pin on Google Maps for live-tracking of his location.
In 2024, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had examined this bail condition imposed by the Delhi HC.
Story continues below this ad
“Imposing any bail condition which enables the Police/Investigation Agency to track every movement of the accused released on bail by using any technology or otherwise would undoubtedly violate the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21,” the court had said, directing deletion of the condition.
