Table of Contents
Background: How the Supreme Court Views CCTV Surveillance in Dwelling Houses
The Supreme Court of India, while dismissing a special leave petition on May 9, 2025, upheld the judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court, confirming the ruling that the installation and operation of the CCTV cameras inside the dwelling houses without the consent of all the occupants amounts to infringement of the right to privacy.
The Calcutta High Court in the case titled Mr. Shuvendra Mullick vs. Mr. Indranil Mullick and others dealt with an important question as to whether the installation of CCTV cameras in the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of the occupants would amount to a violation of the right to privacy. The High Court held that the dignity, autonomy, and identity of an individual must be respected, and therefore, the installation of CCTV cameras in a dwelling house without the permission of all the occupants residing therein amounts to a violation of the right to privacy, which is an indispensable right of a person.
Right to Privacy and Domestic Surveillance
We live in modern times where technology has taken over our daily lives, whether in the form of data collection practices, the proliferation of artificial intelligence, or surveillance systems.
The digital age has benefited us tremendously, but we cannot overlook the fact that it has also increased the mediums whereby personal data may be stored, collected, analysed, and disseminated. The installation of the closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in dwelling houses or private spaces is also the product of modern technology, but if installed in the dwelling houses, it poses a threat to the right to privacy.
The purpose of CCTV cameras is to ensure safety, detection of crimes, collect evidence, and monitor by law enforcement agencies. Here, the right to privacy cannot be a matter of debate since none of our fundamental rights are absolute in nature and are subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when the purpose is the maintain law and order. However, when it comes to the installation of CCTV cameras in the dwelling houses, the scenario changes.
Right to privacy serves as the foundation of the enjoyment of all the other fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The right was brought to the world through an article for the Harvard Law Review titled “The Right to Privacy’ authored by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, students at the Harvard Law School in the year 1890. In the article, the authors argued for the recognition of an individual’s right to be free from unwanted publicity and intrusions in their private lives. They wrote
“Instantaneous photographs have invaded the secret precincts of private and domestic life, and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.”
Thus, the right to privacy was recognised as a right even before it was backed by legal sanctions. While Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the said right to every person, the international instruments also place the right to privacy at the highest pedestal and lay down requisite norms for the enjoyment of the said right without any interference. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly lay down that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or home. The articles further state that everyone has the right to protection of the law against any interference or attack on his or her privacy.
Verdict on Domestic Surveillance and Right to Privacy:
No installation of CCTV cameras in Dwelling Houses without the consent of all the occupants
In India, the law relating to the installation of CCTV cameras is governed and regulated by the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011. As per the said rules, CCTV cameras may be installed as a reasonable security measure, but only by the bodies corporate engaged in commercial or professional activities.
The consent in writing must also be obtained from the providers of the sensitive information that is collected, stored, analysed, or dealt with by the said body corporate. The said rules, however, do not apply to the dwelling houses and thus, the question of installation of the said cameras in his private residential space was raised by the appellant in the aforementioned case.
The brief facts are that the appellant and the respondent are brothers living in the same house peacefully. In the year 2022, the respondent decided to install dome-shaped surveillance CCTV cameras in and around the dwelling house for the purpose of keeping vigilance on the precious collections and the protection of valuable property.
The installation was, however, done without taking the consent of the appellant or his wife. Out of the total 9 cameras, 5 were installed in the interior parts of the dwelling house where the appellant was residing, and the focus of the cameras was on the door, windows, and the interior parts of the appellant’s private space. This, according to him, amounted to a threat to the right to privacy as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The prayer of the appellant was two-fold:
- He has an indispensable right to have a say in the installation of the surveillance cameras in and around the property, and also the right to access the records relating to the surveillance cameras installed without his consent.
- He prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the said cameras and deliver the records that were preserved.
The Court ordered a restraint on the usage and operation of the five cameras that were installed inside the residential portions of the dwelling house. The Court further ordered that if any CCTV cameras were to be installed in the future, including their record and the management, they must be subject to the joint control of both the appellant and the respondents.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court reiterated the importance and sanctity of the right to privacy as was laid down in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another vs. Union of India. The Bench of the High Court held that the right to privacy is fundamental to protect the inner sphere of the individual, and it must always be protected and upheld by the judiciary.
Therefore, any technological development made must adhere to the fundamental right to privacy. Any law that reasonably restricts the right must satisfy the three-fold requirement, i.e., legality which postulates the existence of law, need which must be legitimate as per the state objective and lastly it must be proportional i.e. there must exist a reasonable nexus between the object of creating a restriction on the right to privacy and the means to achieve them. In simple words, the right to privacy must not be surrendered to technological advances as it forms the constitutional core of human dignity. It includes within its ambit the preservation of personal space and connotes the right to be left alone, which at all times should be preserved.
