Installing CCTV Cameras Inside Residential Portion Of House Without Consent Of Co-Occupants Violates Right To Privacy: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that installing CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of the co-occupants or co-trustees amounts to a violation of their right to privacy.

A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held: 

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.

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, they added.

The appellant approached the High Court for discontinuation of the operation of the CCTV cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect after a similar prayer was rejected by the Civil Court.

It was stated that Late Gora Chand Mallick, the father of appellant/plaintiff and respondent/ defendants had settled at the Mullick Bhaban, in a private trust for the enjoyment of his sons, by executing a trust deed, which was lying in the custody of respondents.

Both the appellant and the respondents had been residing peacefully in the respective portion allocated to them in the house as a co-trustee, since then. The appellant and his wife were living there while his son was residing abroad.

It was stated that in 2022, the respondents decided to install dome-shaped surveillance CCTV cameras in and around the suit property for the purpose of keeping vigil on the precious collections and for the protection and security of valuable property and rare antique pieces, preserved in the dwelling house, but they did not communicate this decision to the appellant.

In addition to that, it was stated that the appellant had no access or control over those surveillance cameras, their records, contents and management to verify the recordings. The appellant became aggrieved by the installation of the surveillance cameras in the interior portion of the dwelling house because it was causing hindrance in his unbridled right to enjoy his property as a co-trustee.

He stated that such an act of the respondents was detrimental to the appellant's right to privacy. As such, the appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to his dissent.

Therefore, he was compelled to inform this matter to local police, upon which, the police visited there and advised the respondents to maintain peace and tranquillity by not causing any annoyance to the appellant. But said advice was in vain, as the respondents continued to keep those cameras inside the property.

Apprehending danger to his life, health and safety, the appellant filed a petition under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Executive Magistrate. He also prayed for an order to stop the operation of the surveillance cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect by his application for a temporary and ad-interim injunction, which was refused by the civil court.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that these cameras are installed in the corridors and in the common passage and are pointing towards the entrance of the bedroom, intentionally, to keep a continuous vigil on the activities of the appellant, which amounts to intrusion in his privacy, but the Trial Judge refused the prayer of ad-interim injunction on flimsy ground.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit property was the dwelling house of late Gora Chand Mullick and his descendants. A number of old and valuable art and artefacts were preserved there. The possibility of theft of those articles or mischief with those articles by someone always remained. As such, proper steps for the protection of these articles from imminent threat of theft or mischief could be provided by installing CCTV cameras. None of the CCTV cameras were focused on the door of the appellant.

However, in allowing the appeal and rejecting the prayer of the respondents, the court held:

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: Mr. Shuvendra Mullick -Vs- Mr. Indranil Mullick and others 

Case No: F.M.A.T. No.172 of 2024

Click here to read order