Supreme Court upholds Calcutta HC order that CCTV can't be installed inside home sans permission of all occupants

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with a Calcutta High Court judgement that had 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 [Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick]. .The High Court had in February this year restrained a co-trustee from operating CCTV cameras installed inside a shared residential property without the consent of other co-occupants.The cameras were installed for protecting and monitoring a number of old and valuable art and artefacts in the building.A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan of the Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal against the High Court order.The Court, while dismissing the appeal, said that 10 cameras as opposed to 15 being demanded by the petitioner were enough to protect all the artefacts in the property. 5 out of the 15 cameras were installed inside the residential house of the petitioner's brother without his consent. This, the Court agreed, hampered his right to privacy. “Ultimately all are concerned about the artefacts. Let them be protected using 10 cameras which do not point towards the interior of the house as against the total of 15," the Court said. .The dispute initially arose when the respondent, Shuvendra Mullick, objected to the installation of CCTV cameras by his brother, Indranil Mullick (petitioner), in the shared residential portion of their family home. The cameras were allegedly installed without Shuvendra's consent and covered internal areas of his designated living space, raising concerns over privacy violations.The Calcutta High Court restrained the operation of five CCTV cameras installed inside the residential portions of the dwelling house, finding that they infringed upon Shuvendra's right to privacy. The High Court noted that the cameras were installed in a manner that allowed continuous monitoring of his movements within his living space, contrary to his right to privacy under the Constitution. .Responding to this, Indranil moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the cameras were necessary to protect valuable artefacts and heirlooms housed within the premises. He submitted that restricting the number of cameras would compromise the security of these items and proposed enhanced security measures including restricted access to the footage..However, the top court declined to modify the High Court’s order after noting that the privacy concerns raised by the petitioner were valid and that any further relief should be sought from the High Court itself.Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy and advocate Sriram Parakkat appeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee appeared for the respondent. .Installing CCTV inside house sans permission of all occupants violates privacy: Calcutta High Court