Recently, the division judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of dwelling house without the consent of co-trustee/appellant would amount to restrictions in his right to free enjoyment of property, and violation of the appellant’s right to privacy.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the Appellant/Plaintiff and Respondent/Defendant had settled in double storied dwelling house, in a private trust for the enjoyment of his sons, by executing a trust deed, which was lying in the custody of respondents. In the year 2022, the Respondent 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 the protection and security of valuable property and rare antique pieces, preserved in the dwelling house, but they did not communicate this decision to the appellant. Five cameras were installed in the interior portion of the dwelling house allocated to the appellant on 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 the threat of his right to privacy. The appellant also informed the matter to the local police, however, all the efforts were in vain. Then, the Appellant also filed a petition under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a suit which was rejected by the Learned Judge. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the privacy of the appellant was continuously violated by the CCTV cameras installed by the respondents and the CCTV cameras installed were facing towards the internal portion of the house allocated to the appellant/petitioner. It was furthermore contended that the cameras were installed without the consent of the co-trustee of the property.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that a number of old and valuable art and artifacts were preserved there. The possibility of theft of those articles or mischief with those articles by someone always remained. It was furthermore contended that none of the cameras are facing toward door of the Appellant.
Issue before the Court:
“Whether installation of CCTV cameras in the residential portion of a dwelling house, without consent of co-trustee would amount to violation of his right to privacy?”
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed 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 on 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.
The Court while relying upon the judgment titled Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India emphasized that the right of privacy is a precious right of an individual.
The court furthermore observed that the installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of the dwelling house without the consent of the co-trustee/appellant would amount to restrictions on his right to free enjoyment of property and violation of the appellant’s right to privacy.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the order passed by the court below. The court further restrained the Respondents from using and operating the five cameras that were installed inside the residential portion of the dwelling house.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Mr. Shuvendra Mullick vs. Mr. Indranil Mullick and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar
Case No.: F.M.A.T. No.172 of 2024 IA No: CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 3 of 2024
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Prantik Garai
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Mr. Ayan Dutta Ms. Debjani Sengupta Mr. Rajib Mullick Ms. Ayantika Saha
Picture Source :