Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 tracking devises or GPS enabled smart-phones In cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the trespassory test may provide little guidance. xx xx xx GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a persons public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations disclosed GPS data will be trips to the psychiatrist, plastic surgeon, abortion clinic, AIDS treatment centre, strip club, criminal defence attorney Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future awareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedom it may alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society. xx xx xx I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection (Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes) ... ([W]hat [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected). 138) The judgment of the ECtHR in Zakharov v. Russia64 was also referred to where the ECtHR examined an application claiming violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) alleging that the mobile operators had permitted unrestricted interception of all telephone communications by the security services without prior judicial authorisation, under the prevailing national law. The Court observed that: Mr Zakharov was entitled to claim to be a victim of a violation of the European Convention, even though he was unable to allege that he had been the subject of a concrete measure of surveillance. Given the secret nature of the surveillance measures provided for by the legislation, their broad scope (affecting all users of mobile telephone communications) and the lack of effective means to challenge them at national level Russian law did not meet the quality of law requirement and was incapable of keeping the interception of communications to what was necessary in a democratic society. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention existence of arbitrary and abusive surveillance practices, which appear to be due to inadequate safeguards provided by law. 139) The Court held that any interference with the right to privacy under Article 8 can only be justified under Article 8(2) if it is in accordance with law, pursues one or more legitimate aims and is necessary in a democratic society to achieve such aim. In accordance with the law requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the 64 (2015) Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 117