The Calcutta High Court ruled that installing and operating CCTV cameras inside a home without the consent of co-occupants is a violation of privacy. In a dispute between two brothers, the court found that five cameras were wrongly positioned to monitor one brother’s private living space. Citing the Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, the court emphasized that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and ordered the immediate restriction of these cameras.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
WEST BENGAL: The Calcutta High Court ruled that putting and using CCTV cameras inside the living area of a home without permission from the people living there is a violation of privacy.
A bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar decided that such cameras interfere with a person’s right to live freely in their own home.
“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 right to privacy,”
-the Bench stated.
Because of this, the court stopped a man from using five CCTV cameras that he had installed inside a home he shared with his brother.
ALSO READ: Privacy Violations by Foreign Credit Info Companies: SC Issues Notice
The case started when two brothers, Indranil Mullick and Shuvendra Mullick, had a dispute. Indranil, along with others, installed nine CCTV cameras inside the house. Out of these, five cameras were placed inside the part of the house used by Shuvendra and his son, without their consent.
These cameras were positioned near the doors, windows, and inside Shuvendra’s living area. Their purpose was to monitor Shuvendra’s daily activities, which was seen as a direct attack on his right to privacy. Additionally, he had no access to or control over the footage, which meant he couldn’t verify the recordings or manage them.
Shuvendra raised his objections with Indranil and the others, but they ignored his concerns. Left with no choice, he approached the police. The police visited the house and advised the respondents to maintain peace and not trouble Shuvendra. However, they continued using the cameras.
Frustrated, Shuvendra filed a civil suit in April 2024. He wanted legal recognition of his right to live in the house with dignity and demanded the removal of the CCTV cameras. He also requested an immediate order to stop their operation.
However, the City Civil Court dismissed his request. The court noted that the cameras had been installed in 2022 and had been in use since then. Since Shuvendra had not previously complained about his privacy being affected, the court did not see a strong case for granting an interim order.
Unhappy with this decision, Shuvendra approached the Calcutta High Court.
His lawyer, Advocate Suddhasatva Banerjee, argued that the cameras were placed in common areas and near the entrance of Shuvendra’s bedroom, allowing continuous surveillance of his movements.
Despite this, the trial judge refused the prayer of ad-interim injunction on flimsy ground. Therefore, Banerjee requested the High Court to cancel the lower court’s order.
On the other side, Advocate Siddhartha Banerjee, representing Indranil and the other respondents, argued that the property originally belonged to their late father, Gora Chand Mullick. The house contained many valuable and antique items, which were at risk of being stolen or damaged.
Because of this, they decided to install CCTV cameras to safeguard these items. The respondents also stated that none of the cameras were directly facing Shuvendra’s door. Instead, they were installed in shared areas and at the entrance. They further claimed that the cameras were not meant to violate anyone’s privacy.
One particular camera was placed inside the hall to keep an eye on small, valuable artefacts that could be easily stolen.
The respondents even offered to share access to the CCTV footage with Shuvendra so he could also view the recordings.
However, after reviewing the evidence, including photographs of the cameras and their locations, the High Court found that five out of the nine cameras were indeed facing the residential part of the house. The continuous surveillance of Shuvendra inside his home was a clear violation of his privacy.
The court emphasized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. It cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which established that every individual’s privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
“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,”
-the High Court ruled.
Thus, the court ordered that these specific cameras should be stopped from functioning, as they violated Shuvendra’s right to live in his home without unnecessary surveillance.
CASE TITLE:
Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
