The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that installing and operating CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of co-occupants violates the right to privacy.

A bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar determined that such surveillance would infringe upon the co-occupants’ right to freely enjoy the property.

The Court found that the installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential space, without the consent of the co-trustee, restricted the individual's right to enjoy the property and violated their privacy. As a result, the Court issued an order preventing the man from operating five CCTV cameras installed in the shared dwelling house he co-occupied with his brother.

The dispute between the brothers began after Indranil Mullick, along with others, installed nine CCTV cameras with motion detection inside the house. Five of these cameras were positioned in the area allocated to his brother, Shuvendra Mullick (the appellant), without his consent. These cameras were directed at the door, windows, and interior of Shuvendra’s space, effectively surveilling his daily activities and infringing on his right to privacy. Furthermore, Shuvendra had no access to the recordings or control over the cameras.

Despite raising concerns, Shuvendra’s objections were ignored, leading him to file a police complaint. The police advised the respondents to avoid causing further disturbance, but the cameras remained operational. Subsequently, Shuvendra filed a civil suit in April 2024 seeking the removal of the cameras and an order to cease their operation.

The City Civil Court denied his interim request, noting that the cameras had been installed in 2022 and had been functioning without any prior complaints from Shuvendra regarding privacy concerns. Shuvendra then appealed to the Calcutta High Court.

Representing the appellant, Advocate Suddhasatva Banerjee argued that the cameras were positioned in corridors and common areas, deliberately pointing toward the bedroom entrance to monitor his client's activities, infringing on his privacy. Banerjee contended that the trial court had dismissed the request for an interim injunction on inadequate grounds and sought to overturn that decision.

On the other hand, Advocate Siddhartha Banerjee, representing the respondents, claimed that the cameras were installed to protect valuable artifacts within the dwelling, fearing theft or damage. The respondents argued that the cameras were not aimed at the appellant’s private spaces but were placed in shared areas, asserting that they were not intended to invade anyone’s privacy.

The Court, after reviewing the arguments and examining the locations of the cameras, concluded that five of the nine cameras were focused on the residential portion occupied by the appellant, and their continuous recording of his activities violated his privacy. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, which guarantees the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the High Court held that the appellant’s right to enjoy his property with dignity had been compromised.

Therefore, the Court ordered the cessation of operations for the five CCTV cameras installed inside the appellant’s living space, recognizing this as an infringement on his fundamental right to privacy.