CCTV camera in spas unquestionably infract on right to privacy, bodily autonomy: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday observed that a recent judgment of the Court directing installation of CCTV cameras in a spa was violative of the fundamental right to privacy [Payel Biswas v. The Commissioner of Police]..Justice GR Swaminathan said the right to privacy under Article 21 includes the right of an individual to avail means of relaxation, in this case, in a spa."The installation of CCTV equipment inside premises such as a spa would unquestionably infract upon a person’s bodily autonomy. These are inviolable spaces where the prying eye of the state simply cannot be allowed to enter," the Court held..The Court made the observations while hearing a plea seeking directions to the police to issue a no objection certificate (NOC) for the petitioner to run a spa.During the course of proceedings, the government counsel informed the Court that while dealing with a similar petition, Justice SM Subramaniam passed an order directing installation of CCTV cameras in all spas across the State, with a view to preventing illegal activities..On receiving information of such order, Justice Swaminathan contemplated whether the same should be recalled and referred to a larger Bench, since the law laid down by the Supreme Court stated that a coordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view and can only refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench..However, Justice Swaminathan opined that when the law was already laid down by the Supreme Court, one was obliged to follow it.“In my humblest opinion, and I say this with the greatest of respect to my revered brother Judge, the judgment in C.P Girija v. The Superintendent of Police and Others appears to run counter to the law laid down by the 9-judge bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”.The order stated that restrictions on fundamental rights, though permissible, fell under the domain of the legislature or the executive and could not be curtailed by judicial measures, except by the Supreme Court.“A decision to install a CCTV camera which has a bearing on a person’s privacy requires the most careful of considerations—it requires the government to apply its mind prudently and determine what manner of regulations ought to be put in place for its proper use.”.Holding that the right to relax could be exercised in many forms, the High Court said that the suspicion of immoral activities taking place in massage centres "cannot be reason enough to intrude into an individual's right to relax for it intrinsically is part and parcel of his fundamental right to privacy.".The Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India where it was held that in matters of one's private affairs, constitutional morality shall trump public morality..Justice Swaminathan further noted that the time had come to look beyond viewing privacy as an individual right. He quoted from a work of Professor Priscilla M Regan, where she highlighted the importance of developing and understanding of the social importance of privacy..In the case before the Court, the police was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and dispose the same after consideration on merits within four weeks..Advocates N Edwin Jeyakumar and S Leonard Vasanth appeared for the petitioner. Advocate M Sakthi Kumar appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]