The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s ruling that unilateral CCTV installation inside a shared residence infringes on the right to privacy of other occupants.
News Desk, New Delhi, 12-May: In a significant ruling on the right to privacy, the Supreme Court of India on May 9 upheld a Calcutta High Court judgment that disallows the installation of CCTV cameras inside a house without the consent of all occupants. The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the High Court’s verdict.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan refused to interfere with the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, which ruled in favour of an individual objecting to the installation of surveillance cameras inside a shared residential property.
The case involved two brothers, one of whom had installed CCTV cameras inside the residential area of their jointly owned building, citing the need to protect valuable antiques and rare collectibles. The other brother objected, claiming it was a violation of his privacy.
The Calcutta High Court, through a division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar, held that installing CCTV cameras without the co-occupant’s approval amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right to privacy, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Quoting the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India, the Court observed:
“The right to privacy of every individual is guaranteed and protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution… The dignity, autonomy and identity of an individual shall be respected and cannot be violated in any condition.”
It further stated that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also recognises privacy as a fundamental right, reinforcing its application in domestic legal contexts.
The High Court directed the removal of five CCTV cameras installed inside the shared dwelling, citing that it obstructed the free enjoyment of property and infringed the personal dignity of the appellant.
Legal Representation:
- For Petitioner: Sr. Adv. S Niranjan Reddy, Sriram P (AOR), Vishnu Shankar, Rahul Jojo, Siddhartha Basu, Aditya Santosh, Nalukettil Anandhu S Nair, Maneesha Sunil
- For Respondents: Sr. Adv. Rana Mukherjee (AOR), Siddharth, Prateek Goyal, Harshit Manwani
Case Title:
Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 12384/2025
This ruling aligns with the platform’s focus on highlighting rights-based judicial developments and contributes to the growing public awareness reflected across various most popular articles. For more in-depth coverage on similar legal matters, visit the news section or explore stories from across the national and world-wide categories.
Catch related legal explainers and expert commentary in our videos section, or visit our YouTube channel for more visual updates from the field of law and policy.
In House Development | The Legal Observer
