The Calcutta High Court recently held that installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of co-occupants of such house will amount to infringement of right to privacy..A Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar held that such CCTV will invade the co-occupants' right to free enjoyment of the property."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 held.Hence, it restrained a man from using and operating five CCTV cameras which were installed inside the residential portion of the dwelling house which he was sharing with his brother as a co-trustee. .The dispute between the brothers arose after one of them, Indranil Mullick, along with other respondents, installed nine CCTV cameras with motion detection features inside the house.Five out of the nine cameras were installed in the interior portion of the dwelling house allocated to Mullick's brother, Shuvendra Mullick (appellant), on the first and second floor without his or his son’s consent.These cameras were focused at the door, windows and interior of the appellant’s share, intentionally to keep vigil over the appellant’s day-to-day activity, amounting to threat on his right to privacy. In addition to that, the appellant had no access or control over those surveillance cameras, their records, contents and management to verify the recordings.The appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to his dissent. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the police who visited the house and advised the respondents to maintain peace and not cause any annoyance to the appellant. But said advice was in vain as the respondents continued to keep those cameras inside the property.The appellant then instituted a civil suit in April 2024 for a declaration of his legal and equitable right to enjoyment of the suit property with dignity and to get the CCTV cameras removed. He also prayed for an order to stop the operation of the surveillance cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect.The City Civil Court refused his interim prayer after considering the material on record. It concluded that these CCTV cameras were installed in 2022 and were functioning since then, but appellant never complained to any authority regarding the infringement of his right to privacy being jeopardized by it.He then approached the Calcutta High Court..Advocate Suddhasatva Banerjee, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the cameras are installed in the corridors and in the common passage and are pointing towards the entrance of the bedroom, intentionally, to keep continuous vigil on the activities of appellant, which amounted to intrusion in his privacy. Despite that, the trial judge refused the prayer of ad-interim injunction on flimsy ground. Therefore, Banerjee prayed for setting aside of the order.On the other hand, advocate Siddhartha Banerjee, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the suit property was the dwelling house of late Gora Chand Mullick and his descendants. A number of old and valuable art and artefacts were preserved there. The possibility of theft of those articles or mischief with those articles by someone always remained. Hence, proper steps for protection of these articles from imminent threat of theft or mischief could be provided by installing CCTV cameras. It was further argued that none of the CCTV cameras were focused on the door of the appellant. All cameras were installed in the common passage and the entrance gate. It was also submitted that these CCTV cameras were not installed with the intention to cause any intrusion on the privacy of any person. One camera was installed inside the hall to protect many small pieces of valuable artefacts kept openly, which could be easily removed by anyone, it was argued.The respondents also agreed to provide common access to pictures, data and the records of CCTV cameras..The Court after considering the arguments and examining the photographs of CCTV cameras and details of location of each camera concluded that five of the nine cameras were focused towards residential portion of the dwelling house and continuous recording of activities of appellant in the internal area of his dwelling house amounted to violation of his privacy.Right of privacy is a precious right of an individual and in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 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, the High Court said."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 Court ordered..[Read Judgment]
The Calcutta High Court recently held that installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of co-occupants of such house will amount to infringement of right to privacy..A Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar held that such CCTV will invade the co-occupants' right to free enjoyment of the property."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 held.Hence, it restrained a man from using and operating five CCTV cameras which were installed inside the residential portion of the dwelling house which he was sharing with his brother as a co-trustee. .The dispute between the brothers arose after one of them, Indranil Mullick, along with other respondents, installed nine CCTV cameras with motion detection features inside the house.Five out of the nine cameras were installed in the interior portion of the dwelling house allocated to Mullick's brother, Shuvendra Mullick (appellant), on the first and second floor without his or his son’s consent.These cameras were focused at the door, windows and interior of the appellant’s share, intentionally to keep vigil over the appellant’s day-to-day activity, amounting to threat on his right to privacy. In addition to that, the appellant had no access or control over those surveillance cameras, their records, contents and management to verify the recordings.The appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to his dissent. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the police who visited the house and advised the respondents to maintain peace and not cause any annoyance to the appellant. But said advice was in vain as the respondents continued to keep those cameras inside the property.The appellant then instituted a civil suit in April 2024 for a declaration of his legal and equitable right to enjoyment of the suit property with dignity and to get the CCTV cameras removed. He also prayed for an order to stop the operation of the surveillance cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect.The City Civil Court refused his interim prayer after considering the material on record. It concluded that these CCTV cameras were installed in 2022 and were functioning since then, but appellant never complained to any authority regarding the infringement of his right to privacy being jeopardized by it.He then approached the Calcutta High Court..Advocate Suddhasatva Banerjee, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the cameras are installed in the corridors and in the common passage and are pointing towards the entrance of the bedroom, intentionally, to keep continuous vigil on the activities of appellant, which amounted to intrusion in his privacy. Despite that, the trial judge refused the prayer of ad-interim injunction on flimsy ground. Therefore, Banerjee prayed for setting aside of the order.On the other hand, advocate Siddhartha Banerjee, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the suit property was the dwelling house of late Gora Chand Mullick and his descendants. A number of old and valuable art and artefacts were preserved there. The possibility of theft of those articles or mischief with those articles by someone always remained. Hence, proper steps for protection of these articles from imminent threat of theft or mischief could be provided by installing CCTV cameras. It was further argued that none of the CCTV cameras were focused on the door of the appellant. All cameras were installed in the common passage and the entrance gate. It was also submitted that these CCTV cameras were not installed with the intention to cause any intrusion on the privacy of any person. One camera was installed inside the hall to protect many small pieces of valuable artefacts kept openly, which could be easily removed by anyone, it was argued.The respondents also agreed to provide common access to pictures, data and the records of CCTV cameras..The Court after considering the arguments and examining the photographs of CCTV cameras and details of location of each camera concluded that five of the nine cameras were focused towards residential portion of the dwelling house and continuous recording of activities of appellant in the internal area of his dwelling house amounted to violation of his privacy.Right of privacy is a precious right of an individual and in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 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, the High Court said."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 Court ordered..[Read Judgment]
