The fight for the right to privacy has been at the forefront of numerous legal battles over the past century. However, much less is pondered about commonly used inventions that are of comparatively old vintage, such as credit/debit card usage. Spending patterns of a person can provide information about the locations they have been to, spending habits, and create a behavioural profile. Similarly, CCTV cameras, a significant tool used for surveillance and security in modern environments, can become a tool to violate an individual’s privacy.

Right to Privacy in the Digital Era

The Snowden leaks are a prime example of how governments violate privacy. States across the globe have transitioned from targeted surveillance to mass surveillance, often with the mandate of legislation. Despite having constitutional provisions that long implied privacy protections, the formal recognition only came through judicial interpretations.

Additionally, many private and multinational corporations collect user data over the Internet. Most companies operating in the digital space mine their users’ data, analysing how they interact with different types of stimuli and process that data. They often sell it to the other parties, of course, with implied or coerced consent, as users must either agree or opt out. Despite this, laws such as the GDPR in the EU and the DPDP Act, 2023, in India, among others, are attempting to protect against the rampant processing of personal data by corporations.

Indian Courts on CCTV’s Potential to Violate Privacy

In a recent case, an army major demanded CCTV footage from a hotel for the specific day his wife had allegedly checked in with her paramour. He sought to prove his wife’s infidelity before the court. The court, however, rejected his prayer stating that this would violate the privacy of others.

A similar case regarding CCTV installation and the right to privacy arose in Bengal. In this case, co-sharers of a shared premises, apparently members of the same family, installed CCTV cameras in such a manner to monitor activities of a brother. The Calcutta High Court held that installing CCTV in this fashion would be detrimental to an individual’s privacy. Similarly, the Honourable Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings. This article will further explore the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Shuvendra Mullik v. Indranil Mullik & Ors (FMAT 172/2024), along with elaborating on how CCTV cameras and associated privacy concerns.

Facts of the Case

Mr GC Mallick, before his death, established a private trust and placed his dwelling house for the enjoyment of the property by his sons after his demise. The appellant, one of his sons, was not initially made a trustee. However, he was subsequently added as a trustee by his father through a modification of the trust deed. In this manner, the appellant was using the northeastern corner of the first floor and the southwestern corner of the 2nd floor of the undivided dwelling house. His other brothers were allocated different parts of the house.

Issue Involved

The dispute arose in 2022 when the appellant’s brothers, also co-trustees, installed CCTV cameras on the shared property without his consent. The cameras were installed on the pretext of keeping a vigil on the property as the house featured various rare antiques. The other brothers nether informed the appellant nor did they take his or his son’s consent before the installation.

In the property, a total of 12 CCTV cameras were installed. However, 5 out of the nine cameras installed inside the house pointed directly at the appellant’s portion. This directly violated his privacy and that of his immediate family. Aggrieved by this, he filed an application under Order XIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the City Civil Court in Kolkata. In this application, he prayed for a temporary injunction order against the placement of CCTV.

The City Civil Court in Kolkata refused to grant any relief to the appellant. Aggrieved by this, he approached the High Court of Calcutta.

High Court’s Ruling on the Issue

The High Court appointed a Special Officer to inspect a premises to gain a better understand of the case. The primary responsibility of the Special Officer was to determine if the cameras were encroaching upon the appellant’s privacy. The Special Officer, after the inspection, submitted that the installation was done in a manner that could cause the appellant and his family annoyance.

The High Court noted that installing CCTV cameras inside the residential premises without the appellant’s consent would restrict his ability to enjoy the property feely and violate his privacy. The court also noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd). v. Union of India ((2017) 10 SCC 1, which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

The respondents in this case, filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court, in SLP 12384/2025, decided not to interfere with the High Court’s order.

Conclusion

CCTVs have proven to be a valuable tool in solving crimes in India int he last couple of decades. Law enforcement agencies do not only rely on state-funded CCTV installations, but also on CCTV systems installed by individuals on their premises for security and safety. However, questions regarding individuals’ right to privacy have arisen in recent times. For instance, Rajkot Police arrested a group of individuals for hacking and selling over 50,000 CCTV videos on Telegram featuring footage from school, college, factories, bedrooms, and even hospitals. The Shuvendra Mullick carefully explores the intersection between individual autonomy and collective ownership. It raises pertinent questions about the limits of privacy in shared living arrangements. While historical discourse has primarily addressed privacy as a safeguard against state overreach, the rise of digital technologies has expanded its scope to include concerns over corporate surveillance and personal autonomy in shared spaces. The unchecked expansion of CCTVs can certainly lead to significant privacy violations.