CCTV cameras in residential areas without the consent of other residents breach privacy rights, according to the Calcutta High Court.
The Calcutta High Court has decided that putting CCTV cameras in the living areas of a home, without getting permission from other residents or co-trustees, violates their privacy rights. In this case, the appellant went to the High Court after the Civil Court rejected a similar request. He wanted to stop the CCTV cameras that were set up in shared spaces. The appellant claimed that the cameras, especially those in hallways and common areas, pointed towards his bedroom entrance, which he felt invaded his privacy. Even after raising his concerns with the respondents and involving local police, the cameras continued to operate.
A bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar stated that in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India, the Supreme Court confirmed that every person’s right to privacy is protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as it is essential to the right to life and personal liberty. The dignity, autonomy, and identity of individuals must be respected and cannot be violated under any circumstances. Privacy is also recognized as a fundamental right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, crucial for safeguarding an individual’s personal space.
The Court stated, “We believe that setting up and using CCTV cameras in the living area of a home without the agreement of the co-trustee/appellant restricts his right to enjoy his property freely and violates his privacy.” The High Court supported the appellant, acknowledging that the use of specific CCTV cameras in the home violated his right to enjoy his property with dignity. The Court continued, “Based on our discussions, we are sure that the operation of CCTV Cameras 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13 inside the residential area of the property impacts the appellant’s right to enjoy his property freely. Therefore, he should receive an order to stop the use of these cameras, which seem to intrude on his fundamental right to privacy.”
Cause Title: Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Suddhasatva Banerjee, Prantik Garai
Respondents: Advocates Siddhartha Banerjee, Ayan Dutta, Debjani Sengupta, Rajib Mullick, Ayantika Saha
