The Kerala High Court ruled that the right to privacy cannot automatically mandate the removal of CCTV cameras. Removal is only justified if there is clear evidence that the cameras are intruding into private spaces.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: The Kerala High Court recently clarified the balance between privacy rights and personal security in a significant judgment involving the installation of CCTV cameras on a neighboring property. The Court held that while the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is fundamental, it cannot, by itself, compel the removal of CCTV cameras unless there is clear evidence of snooping into the complainant’s private life.
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court: CCTV Inside Home Without Consent Violates Right to Privacy
Background of the Case
The case arose when a couple filed a writ petition against their relatives, alleging that CCTV cameras installed on the adjacent property intruded into their private spaces, including the drawing room, dining area, and bedroom. The couple claimed that the installation was motivated by animosity and intended to harass them.
The respondents, on the other hand, explained that the CCTV camera was installed by an 80-year-old woman living alone, who had been the victim of serious offences under Sections 354, 354A(1), 354B, 511, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They emphasized that the camera was necessary for her personal safety and security.
Court’s Observations
A Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh evaluated the competing claims of privacy and security. The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ right to privacy but noted that the respondents’ right to personal security, particularly that of an elderly crime victim, was equally important under Article 21.
ALSO READ: Inhuman, Unethical: Chhattisgarh High Court Slams Hospital for Breaching HIV Privacy
The Court referred to the landmark case K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2019), emphasizing that any restriction on privacy must be subject to a proportionality assessment that balances individual autonomy against the need for safety.
Citing its previous ruling in Agnes Michael v. Cheranellore Grama Panchayat (2023), the Court recognized that CCTV cameras cannot be used for snooping. Still, it also highlighted that the petitioners had failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the camera captured images from inside their home.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the installation of CCTV cameras was justified for security purposes. The judgment highlights that privacy concerns must be supported by material evidence to warrant the removal of surveillance devices, setting an important precedent for similar disputes.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates V.M. Krishnakumar, P.R. Reena
Respondents: Advocates S.K. Saju, Sreejith Cherote, Dheeraj A.S. (Government Pleader)
Case Title:
SIVASANKARAN @ SANKARANKUTTY Versus STATE OF KERALA
WP(C) NO. 8754 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
