Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy in CCTV Dispute Over Shared Residence

In a significant ruling on residential privacy, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with a Calcutta High Court judgment that held the installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without co-occupants’ consent amounts to an infringement of their right to privacy.

The case, Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick, involved a dispute between brothers over CCTV surveillance in their shared ancestral home. The High Court had in February 2025 restrained Indranil Mullick, a co-trustee of the family property, from operating five CCTV cameras installed within the residential living space of his brother, Shuvendra Mullick, without consent.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Indranil, argued that the cameras were necessary to protect valuable art and artefacts in the property. However, the High Court found that five out of fifteen cameras were installed in a manner that allowed constant surveillance of Shuvendra’s private living areas, thereby violating his constitutional right to privacy.

Shuvendra raised objections after discovering that the internal areas of his designated residential space were under continuous CCTV monitoring, allegedly without his knowledge or agreement.

Supreme Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan refused to entertain the appeal. While acknowledging the need to protect artefacts, the Court emphasized that such security measures cannot come at the cost of individual privacy.

“Ultimately, all are concerned about the artefacts. Let them be protected using 10 cameras which do not point towards the interior of the house as against the total of 15,” the Court remarked.

The bench agreed with the High Court’s view that privacy within one’s home is sacrosanct, and noted that additional relief, if any, should be sought from the High Court.

Representation

• For the Petitioner (Indranil Mullick): Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy and Advocate Sriram Parakkat
• For the Respondent (Shuvendra Mullick): Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee

---

Also Read

• 🏛️ Legal Internship by ISP Legal Solutions (Ongoing, Jungpura – New Delhi, Offline): Apply Now
• ⚓ Virtual Maritime Law Internship by GOEL and GOEL’S (June 2025, Online): Apply Now
• 🧑‍💼 Legal Administrator Recruitment by Ramboll (India/Europe, Full-Time, Hybrid): Apply Now
• 📚 Legal Internship Opportunity by Abhinav Bhatia & Associates (June 2025, New Delhi, Offline, Unpaid): Apply Now
• 💼 Associate GC and M&A Role by Tier 1 Law Firm (Ongoing, Bangalore, Full-Time): Apply Now
• 🎓 Invitation to Teach Elective Courses at NLSIU (July 1–Sept 19, 2025, Bengaluru, Offline): Register by May 13, 2025
• 📄 Case Study: Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 473 – Supreme Court on Exclusive Jurisdiction in Employment Agreements
• 🏛️ Delhi High Court Faces 40% Vacancy as Transfers and Retirements Reduce Strength to 36 Judges