The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the installation of CCTV cameras inside the residential areas of a dwelling house, without the consent of co-occupants or co-trustees, constitutes a violation of their right to privacy. In this case, the appellant, after a similar plea was dismissed by the Civil Court, approached the High Court seeking an injunction to halt the operation of the CCTV cameras installed within the residential area. The appellant argued that the cameras, particularly those in corridors and common areas, were directed towards the entrance of his bedroom, which he believed was an invasion of his privacy. Despite voicing his concerns to the respondents and even involving the local police, the cameras remained operational.
A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar said, “In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the right to privacy of every individual is guaranteed and protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. The dignity, autonomy and identity of an individual shall be respected and cannot be violated in any condition. The right to privacy is also recognized as a fundamental right in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right is fundamental to protect the inner sphere of the individual.”
The Court added, “Therefore, we are of the view that installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of dwelling house without the consent of co-trustee/appellant would amount to restrictions in his right to free enjoyment of property, and violation of the appellant’s right to privacy,” The High Court sided with the appellant, recognizing that the operation of certain CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of the house infringed upon the appellant’s unrestrained right to enjoy his property with dignity. The Court added, “In view of the above deliberations, we are convinced that operation of CCTV Camera nos. 5, 10,11,12,13 installed inside the residential portion of the suit property definitely affects the unbridled right of the appellant to enjoy his property with dignity. As such, he deserves to get order for restraining of the operation of such camera, which appear to invade the fort of his intrinsic right to privacy.”
Case Title: Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Suddhasatva Banerjee, Prantik Garai
Respondents: Advocates Siddhartha Banerjee, Ayan Dutta, Debjani Sengupta, Rajib Mullick, Ayantika Saha