CCTV Surveillance In Shared Residence Requires Consent Of All Occupants | Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal And Upholds Calcutta High Court Order On Right To Privacy
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan dismissed a special leave petition challenging a decision of the Calcutta High Court, which had held that installation and operation of CCTV cameras inside a residential portion of a shared dwelling house without the consent of co-occupants amounts to infringement of the right to privacy. The apex court declined to interfere with the High Court's ruling, thereby upholding the privacy rights of individuals residing in shared accommodations.
The case, titled Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick, stems from a family dispute where the petitioner, Indranil Mullick, had installed CCTV cameras in the shared residential portion of his ancestral home without the consent of his brother, Shuvendra Mullick. The cameras were reportedly placed to monitor and protect old and valuable art and artefacts stored within the property. However, five of the fifteen cameras were installed inside the residential space occupied by Shuvendra, leading to objections on grounds of privacy invasion.
In February, the Calcutta High Court restrained Indranil, a co-trustee of the family property, from operating the cameras installed without consent. The court ruled that such surveillance violated Shuvendra’s right to privacy under the Constitution. The cameras were found to be capable of monitoring the interior of Shuvendra’s living area, enabling continuous surveillance without his permission.
Indranil subsequently moved the Supreme Court, arguing that the surveillance was necessary for safeguarding the valuable artefacts and heirlooms. He proposed additional security measures, including restricted access to the camera footage, and maintained that limiting the number of cameras would compromise the protection of the items.
The Supreme Court however, refused to entertain the appeal and upheld the High Court’s findings. The apex court agreed that the privacy of the co-occupant had been compromised and maintained that only ten CCTV cameras—excluding those directed inside the residence—would be adequate for artefact protection.
“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 observed.
The Court held that any further relief or changes in security measures should be sought before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sriram P., Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Vishnu Shankar, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Jojo, Advocate; Mr. Siddhartha Basu, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Santosh, Advocate; Mr. Nalukettil Anandhu S. Nair, Advocate; Ms. Maneesha Sunil, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate; Mr. Siddharth, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Prateek Goyal, Advocate; Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocate.
Case Title: Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
Case Number: SLP (C) No. 12384/2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
