FEBRUARY 14, 2025

By M G Kodandaram, IRS. Assistant Director (Retd) ADVOCATE and CONSULTANT

Introduction

THE right to privacy has been a subject of legal discourse, particularly in cases where modern surveillance mechanisms challenge personal freedoms. The recent case of Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick, F.M.A.T. No. 172 of 2024, decided on 10-02-2025 by the Calcutta High Court - 2025-TIOL-261-HC-KOL-MISC, addresses this concern in the context of residential privacy. The court ruled that installing CCTV cameras inside a dwelling house without the consent of a co-trustee or co-occupant constitutes a violation of privacy rights. An attempt is made through this article to provide a legal analysis of the judgment and its implications in the upcoming digital personal data protection regime in India.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose within Mullick Bhaban, a private trust-owned dwelling house, where the appellant and respondents, both sons of Late Gora Chand Mullick, resided in their respective portions as co-trustees. In 2022, the respondents installed dome-shaped surveillance cameras around the property to protect valuable collections, including rare antique pieces. However, the appellant objected to the installation of certain cameras that monitored his allocated portion without his consent. Some of the cameras were focused 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 felt that such act of the respondents was detrimental to his right to privacy. As such, the appellant conveyed his concern to the respondents, but the respondent did not pay any attention to his dissent.

Despite repeated complaints to the respondents and the local police, the appellant's concerns remained unaddressed. The respondents even became hostile towards the appellant due to repeated complaints to the police. Consequently, the appellant sought legal recourse, by filing for a mandatory injunction to remove the cameras. The trial court rejected the prayer for interim relief, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Calcutta High Court.

The crucial issues examined by the High Court are:

1. Whether the installation of CCTV cameras within the residential portion of a property shared by co-trustees without consent constitutes an infringement of privacy rights.

2. Whether the appellant's fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated.

3. Whether the installation of CCTV cameras in a dwelling house could be justified for security and asset protection purposes.

High court's Observations and Ruling

The court relied on the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs. Union of India - 2017-TIOL-311-SC-MISC-CB, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 'right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution'. This decision laid the foundation for privacy protections in various domains, including surveillance and data protection. The ruling emphasized:

- The right to be left alone as an essential aspect of individual dignity.

- Protection against arbitrary state and non-state surveillance.

- The necessity of informed consent for data collection and processing.

It emphasized that personal autonomy, dignity, and identity must be protected against unwarranted intrusion. The said judgment also laid the foundation for recognizing personal data protection as an integral aspect of privacy, influencing subsequent legal developments, including the passage of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 by the Indian Parliament.

Violation of Privacy

In the present case, the Calcutta High Court observed that five cameras (specific numbers indicated) were installed in a manner that focused on the appellant's internal residential areas, including his bedroom entrance and this, the court held, constituted a direct breach of his privacy rights and dignity. It further noted that the appellant lacked access to the recorded footage, compounding the violation by rendering him powerless over surveillance affecting his private space. The bench emphasized that since the dwelling house was held in a private trust, co-trustees had an equal right to its peaceful enjoyment. Any decision impacting privacy should have been taken with mutual consent. The unilateral installation of surveillance cameras, therefore, amounted to a restriction on the appellant's right to freely enjoy his allocated property.

The respondents argued that the CCTV installation was necessary to protect valuable antiques from theft or damage. However, the court clarified that security concerns, while valid, cannot justify an outright infringement of privacy, especially when alternative security measures could be adopted without impeding personal autonomy. The respondents' failure to consult the appellant or provide him access to the surveillance system further aggravated the issue. Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court set aside the trial court's order and restrained the respondents from operating the five surveillance cameras within the appellant's residential portion.

The provisions highlight the necessity for compliance with personal data protection, ensuring that technological advancements do not infringe upon fundamental rights of an Individual. The implications of the Judgment could be listed as under:

1. Strengthening Privacy Rights: The ruling reinforces the significance of privacy in residential settings, ensuring that co-inhabitants cannot unilaterally impose surveillance measures. The same needs to be followed by all residential welfare associations while installing CCTV in securing the community residential premises. The judgment provides a precedent for cases involving co-owned or trust-held properties, clarifying the need for mutual agreement in decisions impacting personal space.

2. Checks on Unregulated Surveillance: The ruling establishes that security concerns do not grant an absolute right to monitor individuals in private areas, preventing potential misuse of surveillance technology.

Strengthening Privacy Protections

The forthcoming Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, establishes a robust framework for safeguarding personal data and privacy in India. Although its implementation is pending, the Act places stringent obligations on entities collecting and processing personal data, ensuring that surveillance practices do not violate individual rights. In the present case, the installation of CCTV cameras without consent can be assessed under the following DPDP Act, 2023 provisions:

1. Section 4: Lawful and Fair Processing - The Act mandates that personal data must be processed lawfully and fairly, ensuring transparency and accountability in data collection practices.

2. Consent-Based Data Processing (Section 6) - The Act requires explicit consent for processing personal data. The unilateral installation of CCTV cameras without the appellant's consent contradicts this provision, as visual data collection using a CCTV qualifies as personal data. In this case, the respondent is to be treated as a fiduciary and is liable for all the legal obligations that follow under the Act.

3. Section 9: Data Security and Privacy Obligations - Data fiduciaries are obligated to implement security measures to protect personal data from unauthorized access and misuse.

4. Right to Access and Correction (Section 11) - The appellant (being referred to as 'Principal' in the Act) was denied access to the surveillance footage, infringing upon his right to access and correct personal data under the Act.

5. Purpose, Limitation and Proportionality - The Act mandates that personal data should only be processed for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes. While security concerns may justify surveillance, excessive monitoring without adequate safeguards breaches this legal requirement.

6. Penalties for Unlawful Processing - The Act prescribes penalties for data fiduciaries that violate consent and data security norms. If examined under the DPDP Act, the respondents in the Mullick case, for unauthorized surveillance, could face legal consequences including huge penalty as prescribed in the Act.

Further various comparative case laws from different countries emphasize the importance of an individual's right to privacy. In R (Wood) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009), the United Kingdom Court of Appeal ruled that the Metropolitan Police's covert surveillance of an individual without justification breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguards the right to privacy. The court stressed that any surveillance must be proportionate and serve a legitimate purpose.

Similarly, in López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (2019), the European Court of Human Rights determined that the covert installation of CCTV cameras in a workplace without notifying employees violated their privacy rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. This ruling extends to residential settings, underscoring the necessity of informing individuals and obtaining their consent before implementing surveillance measures.

In R v. Tessling (2004), the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes. However, the court highlighted that the use of surveillance technologies must be assessed based on the intrusiveness of the method and the nature of the information collected.

In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using thermal imaging technology to monitor a private residence constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized that surveillance targeting private spaces requires legal justification and cannot be conducted arbitrarily.

Conclusion

The Shuvendra Mullick v. Indranil Mullick case highlights the evolving legal framework of privacy in India's digital era. By ruling in favour of the appellant, the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that personal privacy remains inviolable, even within shared properties. This judgment, within the existing laws, serves as a crucial reminder that security measures must be implemented without compromising fundamental rights, ensuring that technological advancements do not undermine individual freedoms.

Moreover, the legal framework proposed to be established by the DPDP Act, 2023, further reinforces privacy protections, mandating the lawful and ethical handling of personal data, including surveillance footage. By citing Puttaswamy (supra), the court strengthened constitutional safeguards against unwarranted surveillance. A comparative analysis with international case law reveals a global consensus on the recognition of privacy violations in residential spaces, with courts consistently upholding the principles of consent and proportionality in surveillance - key tenets in the DPDP era.

Hopefully, the Union Government will implement the DPDP Act without any further delay to enhance the protection of privacy of an individual.

[The views expressed are strictly personal.]