Why Kerala High Court refused plea by couple to remove neighbour's CCTV camera

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by a couple seeking the removal of a CCTV camera installed by their neighbours, holding that surveillance set up for the protection of an elderly woman facing serious criminal threats could not be interfered with. [Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty v. State of Kerala & ors].Justice N Nagaresh reasoned that while the right to privacy is constitutionally protected, it must be balanced carefully against another person's right to life and security.The judge relied on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in KS Puttaswamy (Retired) and another v Union of India to reiterate that the rights operated within a framework of proportionality and not in isolation."An individual lives within himself, within a community and within a State and his personal autonomy is constrained by the values, rights and morals of people who are just as free and as equal as him. Right to privacy of one and the right to security which is an element of right to life of another, are to be balanced delicately when they are in conflict with each other," the Court added..The petitioner and his wife contended that their neighbours had installed a CCTV camera with a focus light in their house which was directly pointing into their drawing-cum-dining area and bedroom. They added that the CCTV camera was installed to harass them and despite filing a police complaint, no steps were taken against the neighbours, prompting them to approach the Court.They argued that installation of the camera was an intrusion into the privacy of their home in violation of Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. However, the respondent neighbours, including the elderly woman and her two children, narrated an entirely different account on why the camera was installed. In their counter, it was stated that the elderly woman was the widow of the petitioner's deceased brother and a victim of grave offences including criminal intimidation, attempt to rape and outraging of her modesty, by none other than the petitioner himself.Further stating that the petitioner is the sole accused in the crime and due to his continued harassment, the CCTV camera was installed by the children to ensure the woman's safety..After examining the facts and submissions, the Court noted that no evidence had been produced by the petitioners to show that the CCTV cameras were installed for snooping into their private spaces.It further stressed that the case involved an elderly crime victim who was facing credible threats, which tipped the balance in favour of ensuring her safety and security."As far as respondents 5 to 7 are concerned, they have a right to life, a safe and secure life. It is to protect their safety and security that the CCTV Cameras are installed. In the circumstances, unless there is an established case of snooping into the affairs of the petitioners, there cannot be a direction to respondents 5 to 7 to remove the CCTV Cameras," the Court added.The writ petition was accordingly dismissed..Advocates VM Krishnakumar and PR Reena appeared for the petitioners.Advocates SK Saju and Sreejith Cherote represented the elderly woman and her children.Government pleader Dheeraj AS appeared for the State..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.