Calcutta High Court: An appeal was filed challenging the order dated which rejected the prayer of the appellant-plaintiff for discontinuation of the operation of the CCTV cameras installed inside the dwelling house with immediate effect made under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. A division bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ., set aside the impugned order and held that the operation of CCTV Camera nos. 5, 10,11,12,13 installed inside the residential portion of the suit property affects the unbridled right of the appellant to enjoy his property with dignity.
The father of appellant/plaintiff and respondent/ defendants had settled at the Mullick Bhaban, his double storied dwelling house in a private trust for the enjoyment of his sons, by executing a trust deed, which was lying in the custody of respondents. Accordingly, the north-eastern corner on the first floor and the south-western corner on the second floor of the undivided dwelling house were allocated to the appellant. Both the appellant and the respondents have been residing peacefully in the respective portion allocated to them in the house as a co-trustee, since then.
The appellant and his wife were living there while his son was residing abroad in connection with his job. Subsequently, in 2022, the respondents decided to install dome shaped surveillance CCTV cameras in and around the suit property for the purpose of keeping vigil on the precious collections and for the protection and security of valuable property and rare antique pieces, preserved in the dwelling house, but they did not communicate this decision to the appellant. Consequently, a total nine cameras with motion detection features were installed therein focusing on the door, windows and interior of the appellant’s share, intentionally to keep vigil over the appellant’s day-to-day activity, amounting to threat on his right to privacy. In addition to that, the appellant had no access or control over those surveillance cameras, their records, contents and management to verify the recordings.
The appellant became aggrieved by the installation of the surveillance cameras in the interior portion of the dwelling house because it was causing hindrance in his unbridled right for enjoyment of his property as a co-trustee. He felt that such an act of the respondents was detrimental to the appellant’s right to privacy. As such, the appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but they did not pay any heed to his dissent. Therefore, he informed the matter to local police station which went in vain inspite of repeated complaints to the police. Apprehending danger to his life, health and safety, the appellant filed a petition under Section 144 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, appellant instituted a suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents / defendants to remove the surveillance from the suit property after which the respondents/defendants were directed to file their show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why the application of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff / appellant shall not be allowed.
The appellant challenged this order on the ground that privacy of the appellant was continuously violated by the CCTV cameras installed by the respondents, but the Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the CCTV cameras were facing towards the internal portion of the house allocated to the appellant/petitioner and were pointing towards his bedroom and were installed without the consent of the appellant, a co-trustee of the property. Thus, the present appeal was filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that the Trial Judge passed this order without application of mind as he did not appreciate the photographs attached with the injunction application, which reveal how his right to privacy was continuously infringed, and the order suffers from infirmity and illegality, and is bad in law.
The Court noted that Camera Nos. 5,10,11,12, and 13 are installed in the common corridor or passage and hall room, and that these cameras are focused on residential portion of the dwelling house. Continuous recording of activities of appellant in the internal area of his dwelling house is violating his privacy. 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 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right is fundamental to protect the inner sphere of the individual.
The Court concluded 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. Thus, that 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.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 04-04-2024 and restrained the respondents from using and operating the aforesaid five cameras which were installed inside the residential portion of the dwelling house.
[Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick, F.M.A.T. No.172 of 2024, decided on 10-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Prantik Garai
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Mr. Ayan Dutta Ms. Debjani Sengupta Mr. Rajib Mullick Ms. Ayantika Saha
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
