5 min readNov 10, 2023 09:14 AM IST
First published on: Nov 8, 2023 at 04:53 PM IST
On November 5, a Special Court in Jammu granted bail to Ghulam Mohd Bhat who has been accused of terror financing under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 on the condition that Bhat wears a GPS tracker around his anklet. With this order, the Jammu and Kashmir police became the first in the country to deploy a GPS-enabled, wearable tracking device to monitor and record the movement of an accused released on bail.
While the unprecedented nature of the bail condition has resulted in significant reporting on the case, there has been little discussion on the validity and reliability of the technology in use. The experience of other jurisdictions with the GPS tracker shows that the technology is prone to errors and is not entirely reliable. In fact, the faulty nature of the technology can result in unintended consequences for accused persons. Besides, it would be highly imprudent to assume that the police in India are well-equipped to use this technology to monitor and track those out on bail.
Conditions imposed for bail usually are meant to ensure that those released refrain from contacting victims or witnesses, tamper or manipulate evidence or commit any further crimes. As such, conditions often require them to stay in a certain geographic area or prohibit them from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without permission. Tracking movements, thus, is useful in checking compliance with such conditions and ostensibly GPS-enabled trackers are a crucial tool in doing so.
However, in reality, research on the use of GPS trackers in other countries reveals serious limitations with the technology itself. An unobstructed view of the sky to connect with satellites and the availability of a good cellular network are essential for the smooth functioning of the GPS tracker. These requirements mean that bigger cities are better placed to provide ideal conditions for GPS to give the best results. In fact, despite the presence of these conditions, the GPS may fail to position accurately due to a hindrance in the atmosphere. Buildings, foliage, and weather conditions can lead to a poor quality of signals. The device cannot maintain a continuous signal in the absence of ideal conditions. There may also be issues with accuracy when the device is exposed to water or is static for a long period. Reliance on GPS tracking thus assumes the existence of optimal conditions at most, if not at all times. Needless to say, this would be difficult in the Indian context.
Empirical research conducted by the University of Chicago shows that ankle monitors are highly prone to false alarms due to poor signal. Owing to such issues, police personnel in charge of monitoring alerts, struggle to determine which alerts are genuine, even in jurisdictions like the US where such technology has been used for decades. Monitoring systems, and deployment of officials dedicated to tracking the movement of individuals, who have been provided the required training to understand how these devices work is essential before the use of GPS tracking can even be considered in the Indian criminal justice system.
Like any other device, these GPS trackers are also dependent on batteries and can malfunction or discharge. Hence, the technology is not only inaccurate but also unreliable; and can often lead to serious ramifications for the accused. One such instance where the failure of technology led to severe consequences for the accused, despite no fault of his own is the case of Kevin Jones. Jones was arrested by the police in Oakland County, Michigan (the US) for violating conditions of his release on probation – because the battery of his “tether”, the GPS-enabled device used to track him, malfunctioned when he was asleep.
Research and experience with GPS-enabled tracking from across the world present a tale of caution for the reliance on this technology. These concerns are exemplified in the context of the Indian criminal justice system where there is little critical thinking and conversation on lapses in science and technology. Whether it is the appreciation of forensic evidence in courts, or the usage of GPS-enabled devices for monitoring accused persons, technology is perceived to be error-free and objective by most stakeholders in the criminal justice system including the law enforcement personnel and the judiciary.
Given such attitudes, it is not surprising that GPS-enabled trackers have been readily adopted in the administration of criminal justice without due diligence. However, it is important that we take a step back and confront the questions about the validity and reliability of this technology, as well as the capacity of our law enforcement personnel to use it. Moving ahead with the use of GPS trackers without addressing these fundamental issues carries serious risks for the fair trial rights of accused persons.
The writer is with Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi. Views are personal. Nadia Shalin provided research assistance
Ghulam Mohd Bhat, who has been accused of terror financing under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, was granted bail by a Special Court in Jammu on the condition that Bhat wears a GPS tracker around his anklet. (PTI) 
Share
