1. Facts
1.1. The Appellant (Shuvendra Mullick) and Respondents (Indranil Mullick and Ors.) are brothers and co-trustees of the "Mullick Bhaban", a double-storied house. In 2022, the respondent installed nine CCTV cameras with motion detection in and around the property, including five inside the portion allocated to the appellant, without his consent. These cameras were allegedly focused on the door, windows, and interior of the appellant's share, monitoring his day-to-day activities, and the appellant was even denied access to the camera recordings and management. This act of respondent was detrimental to the appellant's right to privacy.
1.2. Therefore, the Appellant filed a suit against the installation of these CCTV cameras for alleged violation of his right to privacy praying for prayer for immediate cessation of the operation of the indoor CCTV cameras, which was rejected by the lower court. Against this order of the lower court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta.
2. Issues
2.1. Whether the installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house, without the consent of a co-trustee residing therein, constitutes a violation of that co-trustee's right to privacy as provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Arguments and Decision
3.1. The Appellant argued that the installation of cameras in the corridors and common passage, pointing towards the entrance of his bedroom, was a deliberate intrusion into his privacy and amounted to continuous surveillance of his activities. Over and above, the cameras were installed without his consent, despite him being a co-trustee of the property. The respondents were clandestinely and illegally recording his activities, violating his constitutional rights.
3.2. The Respondent argued that the suit property housed old and valuable art and artifacts, making the installation of CCTV cameras necessary for their protection against theft or mischief, and the cameras were not installed with the intention of causing any intrusion into anyone's privacy.
3.3. The Hon'ble Court referred to the report of the Special Officer appointed for the inspection of the premises in respect of the position of the CCTV cameras and the possibility of infringement of privacy of appellant thereby. The report revealed that:
3.3.1. Camera No. 5 was installed at the north-east corner of the common corridor of the residential wing focused on the common corridor of the residential wing inside the building.
3.3.2. Camera No. 10 was installed at the south-east corner of the 'Hall Ghar' primarily focused inside the 'Hall Ghar' where ceremonies and small gatherings were held.
3.3.3. Camera No. 11 was installed at the north-west corner of the 'Hall Ghar', but was inoperative at the time of inspection.
3.3.4. Camera No. 12 was installed at the south-east corner of the common corridor of residential wing and focused on the common corridor of the residential wing.
3.3.5. Camera No. 13 was installed at the north-west corner of the common corridor of residential wing, but was inoperative at the time of inspection.
3.4. Relying on the report, the court said that out of 15 cameras only five cameras are installed inside the residential wing of the building, recording of which may cause annoyance for the individual. It was found that Camera Nos. 5,10,11,12, and 13 are installed in the common corridor or passage and hall room, and these cameras are focused toward a residential portion of the dwelling house. Continuous recording of activities of the appellant in the internal area of his dwelling house violates his privacy.
3.5. The Hon'ble Court mentioned that the right to privacy is a precious right of an individual. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, 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, as it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. The dignity, autonomy, and identity of an individual shall be respected and cannot be violated in any condition. The right to privacy is also recognized as a fundamental right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right is fundamental to protect the inner sphere of the individual.
3.6. The Hon'ble Court held that the installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of the dwelling house without the consent of the cotrustee/appellant would amount to restrictions in his right to the free enjoyment of property and violation of the appellant's right to privacy. Also, these CCTV installations affect the unbridled right of the appellant to enjoy his property with dignity.
3.7. Against this backdrop, the Hon'ble Court ordered to restrain the operation of such a camera, which appears to invade the fort of his intrinsic right to privacy. However, the court also provided a way forward by stating that the parties were at liberty to take alternative measures for the security of valuable articles. Furthermore, the court directed that the parties shall enjoy joint control over the CCTV cameras, their record, and management.
3.8. Hence, the Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower court.
4. Conclusion
4.1. The judgment clearly establishes that individuals have a strong expectation of privacy within their residential space, even in shared properties. The installation of CCTV cameras that monitor an individual's living space without their explicit consent is likely to be considered a violation of their right to privacy. While security concerns are legitimate, they cannot be used as a blanket justification to infringe upon fundamental rights. Alternative measures that are less intrusive should be explored.
4.2. While the present appeal was adjudicated under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it's crucial to acknowledge the evolving legal framework surrounding privacy. India has recently enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA), which received presidential assent on August 23, 2023. Though the DPDPA is not yet enforced and the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 were released for public feedback in January 2025. The impending implementation of the DPDPA and its associated rules will likely introduce specific mechanisms for addressing privacy violations, including those arising from interpersonal disputes.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon'ble Justice Uday Kumar
F.M.A.T. No.172 of 2024 IA No: CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 3 of 2024
Mr. Shuvendra Mullick -Vs Mr. Indranil Mullick and others
For the Appellant : Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Mr. Prantik Garai
For the Respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Ayan Dutta, Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Mr. Rajib Mullick, Ms. Ayantika Saha
Heard concluded on : 22.01.2025
Judgment on : 10.02.2025
Uday Kumar, J.: -
1. The prayer of appellant /plaintiff for discontinuation of the operation of the CCTV cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect made under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Title Suit No. 530 of 2024, was rejected by the Learned Judge, VIII th Bench, City Civil Court on 4th April, 2024. This order is impugned in this appeal.
2. Late Gora Chand Mallick, the father of appellant/plaintiff and respondent/ defendants had settled at the Mullick Bhaban, his double storied dwelling house, at 9/1/1A, Khelat Ghosh Lane, under Jorabagan Police Station, in a private trust for the enjoyment of his sons, by executing a trust deed, which was lying in the custody of respondents.
3. Primarily, the name of appellant was not inducted in the said trust deed. Later, his name was incorporated therein after modification and rectification of the earlier deed by devising three (03) registered deeds executed by Late Gora Chanda Mallick on 8th December 2004, with the intention to induct the name of the appellant as a co-trustee and to accredit his position in the trust. Accordingly,the north-eastern corner on the first floor and the south-western corner on the second floor of the undivided dwelling house i.e., Mallick Bhaban, were allocated to the appellant. Both, the appellant and the respondents have been residing peacefully in the respective portion allocated to them in the house as a co-trustee, since then. The appellant and his wife were living there while his son Souvanik Mallick was residing abroad in connection with his job.
4. Subsequently, in 2022, the respondents decided to install dome shaped surveillance CCTV cameras in and around the suit property for the purpose of keeping vigil on the precious collections and for theprotection and security of valuable property and rare antique pieces, preserved in the dwelling house, but they did not communicate this decision to the appellant.
5. Consequently, a total nine cameras with motion detection features were installed therein, out of which five (05) were installed in the interior portion of the dwelling house allocated to the appellant at 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.
6. The appellant became aggrieved by the installation of the surveillance cameras in the interior portion of the dwelling house because it was causing hindrance in his unbridled right for enjoyment of his propertyas a co-trustee. He felt that such act of the respondents was detrimental to the appellant's right to privacy. As such, the appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to his dissent.
7. Therefore, he was compelled to inform this matter to local police station at Jorabagan by filing a letter of complaint on 1st November, 2023, upon which, the police visited there and advised the respondents to maintain peace and tranquillity by not causing any annoyance to the appellant. But said advice was in vain, as the respondents continued to keep those cameras inside the property. So, the appellant approached the local police again on December 15, 2023 by filing a letter of complaint, but the respondents became hostile towards the appellant due to repeated complaints to the police.
8. Apprehending danger to his life, health and safety, the appellant filed a petition under Section 144 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Executive Magistrate, upon which Misc. Case No. 41 of 2024 was started, wherein a report was called for from the Officer-in-Charge, of Jorabagan P.S. and he was directed to keep vigil over the locality to prevent any incident of breach of peace and tranquillity, however all went in vain.
9. Therefore, appellant instituted this suit on 2nd April, 2024 for declaration:
- of legal and equitable right of plaintiff/appellant for enjoyment of the suit property with dignity and,
- of indispensable right of plaintiff/appellant to have a say in the installation of the surveillance cameras in and around the suit property and,
- of right to remove any threat, nuisance or annoyance caused to him due to unauthorized installation of surveillance cameras and,
- of right of the plaintiff/appellant to access the records relating to the surveillance cameras installed without his consent and its management.
- Therefore, he prayed for
- mandatory injunction directing the respondents / defendants to remove the surveillance from the suit property and,
- to deliver the records of the surveillance cameras which were preserved for the whole period of installation and,
- for perpetual injunction to prohibit the defendants/ respondents from doing any acts or omissions of installation of surveillance cameras in the property without the consent of the plaintiff.
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
