Right To Privacy Cannot Justify Removal Of CCTV Cameras Unless Snooping Is Established: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that CCTV cameras installed by neighbouring residents cannot be directed to be removed merely based on an allegation of intrusion into privacy, observing that such a direction is justified only when a case of snooping is established.
Justice N. Nagaresh, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the right to privacy under Article 21 cannot, by itself, compel the removal of CCTV cameras installed on a neighbouring property unless there is material to demonstrate actual snooping into the affairs of the complainant.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a couple who alleged that CCTV cameras installed by their relatives in an adjacent house were intruding into the private spaces of their residence.
A Single Bench comprising Justice N. Nagaresh, while adjudicating the matter, held: “It is true that the petitioners have right to privacy and unnecessary snooping into the personal affairs of the petitioners cannot be justified. At the same time, the 5th respondent is a 80 year old lady and who has been victim of the sexual offence. As far as respondents 5 to 7 are concerned, they have a right to life, a safe and secure life. It is to protect their safety and security that the CCTV Cameras are installed. In the circumstances, unless there is an established case of snooping into the affairs of the petitioners, there cannot be a direction to respondents 5 to 7 to remove the CCTV Cameras.”
Advocates Krishnakumar and P.R. Reena appeared for the petitioners. Advocates S.K. Saju, Sreejith Cherote and the Government Pleader Dheeraj AS appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioners, husband and wife, reside in a house situated adjacent to the property of the respondents. The petitioners contended that the respondents installed a CCTV camera with a light facing their residence, resulting in alleged snooping into their drawing room, dining area, and bedroom.
The parties share a private pathway between their houses and have a history of strained relations. According to the petitioners, the installation of the camera was motivated by animosity and intended to harass them. A representation submitted before the police authorities elicited no response, prompting the present writ petition.
Respondents denied the allegation of snooping and asserted that the 5th respondent, an 80-year-old woman living alone, had installed the camera solely for her protection. They contended that she had been the victim of offences under Sections 354, 354A(1), 354B, 511, and 376 IPC allegedly committed by the petitioner, and that the camera was necessary for her safety.
Court’s Observation
The Kerala High Court, upon hearing the matter, observed that while the petitioners invoked their right to privacy, the respondent and her family members relied on their right to personal security, also an element of Article 21. The Bench emphasised that these competing rights must be balanced in a manner consistent with constitutional principles.
Referring to K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2019), the Court noted that privacy can be curtailed only through a proportionality-based assessment, requiring consideration of the intrinsic value of autonomy and dignity, along with the competing right to security.
The Court accepted that unnecessary intrusion into the petitioners’ private life would be impermissible, citing its earlier decision in Agnes Michael v. Cheranellore Grama Panchayat (2023), which held that CCTV cameras cannot be used as instruments for snooping.
However, the Court found no evidence that the camera in question was aimed at or capturing images from within the petitioners’ home. The respondents had asserted that the camera was installed for security following the alleged offences, and the petitioners failed to counter this with proof of misuse.
Given the circumstances, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ apprehension of surveillance was not supported by material evidence, while the need for security of the elderly 5th respondent was substantiated.
Conclusion
Holding that the petitioners had established no case of actual snooping, the High Court declined to interfere with the CCTV installation.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty & Another v. State of Kerala & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:58261)
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocates V.M. Krishnakumar, P.R. Reena
Respondents: Advocates S.K. Saju, Sreejith Cherote, Dheeraj A.S. (Government Pleader)
