Introduction:

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the sanctity of individual privacy within shared residential spaces, the Supreme Court of India, on May 9, 2025, declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s decision that installing CCTV cameras inside a dwelling without the consent of all occupants constitutes a violation of privacy rights.

The case centred around a familial dispute between two brothers, Indranil Mullick and Shuvendra Mullick, co-occupants of a heritage property known as Mullick Bhaban in Kolkata. The property, housing valuable antiques and artworks, was managed under a private trust established by their father, Late Gora Chand Mullick. In 2022, Indranil installed nine CCTV cameras within the premises, five of which were directed towards areas exclusively used by Shuvendra, including his bedroom and private living spaces. Shuvendra contended that these installations were made without his consent, infringing upon his right to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of his residence.

Arguments Presented:

Appellant’s Perspective:

Shuvendra Mullick argued that the unauthorized installation of CCTV cameras by his brother constituted an invasion of his privacy. He emphasized that the surveillance extended into his private quarters, including his bedroom, without any prior consultation or consent. Despite raising concerns with Indranil, no remedial action was taken, compelling Shuvendra to seek legal recourse. He filed complaints with the local police and approached the Executive Magistrate under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, these efforts did not yield the desired outcome, leading him to file a civil suit seeking the removal of the cameras and protection of his privacy rights.

Respondent’s Defense:

Indranil Mullick defended his actions by asserting that the installation of CCTV cameras was necessitated by the need to safeguard the property’s valuable antiques and artworks. He maintained that the cameras were strategically placed in common areas to deter theft and ensure security. Indranil also offered to adjust the camera angles and provide Shuvendra with access to the footage, aiming to alleviate concerns regarding privacy infringement.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Calcutta High Court, upon reviewing the case, appointed a Special Officer to inspect the premises. The inspection revealed that five cameras were indeed installed within the residential sections, with some directed towards Shuvendra’s private spaces. The court concluded that such surveillance without consent violated Shuvendra’s fundamental right to privacy, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, which recognised the right to privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty.

The High Court ordered the removal of the five CCTV cameras infringing upon Shuvendra’s privacy and directed that any future installations within the residential portions require the consent of all occupants. The court emphasised that while security concerns are valid, they must not override individual privacy rights.

Supreme Court’s Stance:

The matter escalated to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition filed by Indranil Mullick. However, the apex court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, upheld the Calcutta High Court’s ruling, dismissing the petition and reinforcing the principle that individual privacy cannot be compromised without consent, even in shared residential settings.