In this instance “Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick & Ors.” a decision made by the Calcutta High Court, the installation of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) within the residential parts of a dwelling house without the approval of co-occupants or co-trustees constitutes a breach of their right to privacy inside the dwelling house. During this particular case, the appellant addressed the High Court in an effort to get an injunction that would prevent the functioning of the CCTV cameras that had been placed inside the residential area. This was done after the Civil Court rejected a similar petition.
The appellant said that he felt his privacy had been violated since the cameras, especially those in common areas and hallways, were pointed at the entrance to his bedroom. The cameras continued to function even after he expressed his concerns to the responders and even the local police.
A division bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar articulated, “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 additionally said, “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,”
In this case, the High Court agreed with the appellant, acknowledging that the appellant’s unrestricted right to enjoy his property with dignity was violated by the installation of certain CCTV cameras within the domestic area of the home.
The Court further 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.”
Advocates Suddhasatva Banerjee, Prantik Garai appear for the petitioner and appear for respondents Advocates Siddhartha Banerjee, Ayan Dutta, Debjani Sengupta, Rajib Mullick, Ayantika Saha