GUWAHATI: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that installing CCTV cameras inside the residential section of a dwelling without the consent of co-occupants or co-trustees constitutes a violation of their right to privacy.
ALSO READ: Husband Arrested After Woman’s Suicide In Assam’s Golaghat
A division bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar cited the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs Union of India (AIR 2017 SC 4161), which recognised the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasised that an individual’s dignity, autonomy, and identity must be respected and cannot be violated under any circumstances.
The appellant had approached the High Court seeking an order to discontinue the operation of CCTV cameras installed inside a dwelling house, after a similar request was denied by the Civil Court. The property in question, Mullick Bhaban, was settled as a private trust by Late Gora Chand Mallick for the enjoyment of his sons. The appellant and respondents, as co-trustees, had been residing in their respective portions of the house peacefully. The appellant lived there with his wife, while his son resided abroad.
The respondents installed dome-shaped CCTV cameras inside and around the property to protect valuable antiques and artworks but did not inform the appellant in 2022. He had no access to or control over the recordings, which he claimed restricted his ability to enjoy the property freely as a co-trustee. The appellant protested that the cameras were an intrusion into his privacy, particularly as some were positioned near his bedroom entrance. His concerns were ignored by the respondents, prompting him to report the matter to the local police, who advised the respondents to maintain peace. However, the cameras remained operational.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Executive Magistrate. He also sought an injunction to halt the surveillance, but the Civil Court refused his request. The appellant’s counsel argued that the placement of the cameras amounted to a constant and deliberate surveillance of his movements, violating his fundamental rights. Thereby, the respondents defended the installations as a necessary security measure to safeguard valuable artifacts within the property.
After reviewing the arguments, the High Court ruled in favour of the appellant, finding that CCTV cameras numbered 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13, which were installed inside the residential portion, infringed upon his right to privacy. The court concluded that the appellant had the right to enjoy his property with dignity, free from unwarranted surveillance, and accordingly restrained the operation of the cameras in question.
