Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court (May 9) refused to interfere with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held that CCTV cameras cannot be installed in a house without the consent of all occupants.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the High Court's judgment.

The dispute was between two brothers, with one of them objecting to the other installing CCTV cameras in the residential portion of their shared building without his consent. The CCTV was sought to be installed purportedly to keep a vigil on the precious collections and for the protection and security of valuable property and rare antique pieces, preserved in the dwelling house

The High Court held that installing CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of the co-occupants or co-trustees amounts to a violation of their right to privacy.

A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:

"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 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right is fundamental to protect the inner sphere of the individual.

Therefore, we are of the view 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.'

The High Court therefore directed the removal of 5 CCTV cameras which were installed within the residential portion, since it was infringing the right to property and dignity of the appellant.

For petitioner: Sr Advs S Niranjan Reddy, Sriram P AOR, Advs 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 : Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick | SLP(c) 12384/2025

Click here to read the order