New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reinforced that the right to privacy does not vanish at the doorstep of a shared home, refusing to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s order restricting unconsented CCTV surveillance inside a family residence.
The Calcutta High Court in February ruled that the installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a shared ancestral home, without the consent of the co-occupants, violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
On 9 May, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan rejected the Special Leave Petition challenging the decision of the high court and reaffirmed the right to privacy.
The apex court said, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.”
Surveillance in a shared family home
The case arises from a dispute at Mullick Bhaban, a family residence in Kolkata, which was placed under a private trust by late Gora Chand Mullick for his sons. Initially, one of the sons, Shuvendra Mullick, was left out of the trust deed. However, through rectification deeds executed in 2004, he was later included as a co-trustee and granted some portions of the property, including rooms on the first and second floors.
In 2022, a dispute arose when the other trustees—also family members—unilaterally installed 15 CCTV cameras around the premises. Shuvendra discovered that at least five of these were directed at areas he occupied exclusively, such as his bedroom entrance, private corridor, and balcony. These were not common spaces.
Initially, Shuvendra sought police intervention. He filed complaints at the Jorabagan police station on 1 November and 15 December 2023. Though police visited the property and advised the family to maintain peace, the cameras remained operational. Shuvendra then turned to the courts, seeking an injunction. However, when the City Civil Court, Calcutta, refused, he appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which then examined the broader issue of privacy in shared residences.
On 13 January, the high court appointed Ms. Devlina Lahiri as a special officer, instructing her to inspect the premises of Mullick Bhaban and provide an impartial assessment of the positioning and focus of the 15 CCTV cameras.
A detailed report submitted by Lahiri, which included photographic evidence, confirmed that several cameras were directed either at or near the appellant’s exclusive living areas. She also found that cameras had been placed inside rooms formerly occupied by the late Gora Chand Mullick that were now part of the appellant’s allocated space. The report confirmed the appellant’s claim that continuous surveillance over these interior areas were invading his privacy.
Right to Privacy—Article 21
The legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was not about the existence of the right to privacy—well settled in Indian constitutional law—but rather its application in a domestic, co-owned setting. In this case, specifically, if one co-trustee could install surveillance equipment in a shared property without the knowledge or consent of the other.
The respondents argued that the surveillance was intended to protect the house’s antique artefacts and prevent potential theft or vandalism. However, the division bench, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, said security concerns, however genuine, could not justify unilateral and intrusive monitoring of private living areas.
The court also found that the CCTV system was not restricted to common or public areas. Cameras directed towards the appellant’s bedroom, corridor, and verandah—spaces with legitimate privacy expectations—amounted to excessive and unconstitutional intrusion.
In its reasoning, the court relied heavily on Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). In that case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, encompassing bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and the sanctity of the home.
Adding to this, the high court said, “The dignity, autonomy and identity of an individual shall be respected and cannot be violated in any condition. The right to privacy is also recognised 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.”
The Calcutta High Court affirmed, “Installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of the 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.”
However, while siding with the appellant on the issue of privacy infringement, the high court did not entirely prohibit CCTV usage on the property. Instead, it said, “Parties are at liberty to take an alternative measure for (the) security of valuable articles preserved in the building. Parties shall enjoy joint control over the CCTV cameras, their record and management.”
The high court said, “Operation of CCTV Camera nos. 5, 10,11,12,13 installed inside the residential portion of the suit property definitely affects the unbridled right of the appellant to enjoy his property with dignity.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Why Supreme Court reversed Delhi High Court’s Wikipedia page takedown order in ANI defamation case