'No Proof Of Snooping': Kerala High Court Refuses To Order Removal Of Neighbours' CCTV Cameras
The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the installation of a CCTV camera by neighbours, holding that the right to privacy under Article 21 cannot override another person's right to security unless unlawful intrusion is clearly established.Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment and observed: “Right to privacy of one and the right to security, which is...
The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the installation of a CCTV camera by neighbours, holding that the right to privacy under Article 21 cannot override another person's right to security unless unlawful intrusion is clearly established.
Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment and observed: “Right to privacy of one and the right to security, which is an element of right to life of another, are to be balanced delicately when they are in conflict with each other.”
"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 to remove the CCTV Cameras," the court said.
The petitioners approached the Court alleging that a CCTV camera installed by their neighbours intruded into the private areas of their home, including the bedroom and dining room. They argued that such surveillance amounted to unnecessary snooping into the personal affairs of the petitioners.
The petitioners also relied on the decision of Agnes Michael v. Cheranellore Grama Panchayat [2023 KHC OnLine 9014], where the Court held that under the guise of installing CCTV surveillance Cameras, individuals should not be permitted to snoop into affairs of their neighbours.
Respondents 5 to 7 contended that the CCTV camera was installed to protect the fifth respondent, an 80-year-old woman who lives alone and is the complainant in a pending criminal case against the first petitioner involving allegations of attempt to rape and other offences under Sections 354, 354A(1), 354B, 511 and 376 IPC.
The Court reiterated that the right to privacy, recognised as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [(2019) 1 SCC 1], can be restricted only if the test of proportionality is satisfied. The Court noted that privacy carries both intrinsic value, relating to personal autonomy and dignity, and community value, where rights intersect with the freedoms of others.
“An individual lives within himself, within a community and within a State and his personal autonomy is constrained by the values, rights and morals of people who are just as free and as equal as him. Right to privacy of one and the right to security which is an element of right to life of another, are to be balanced delicately when they are in conflict with each other.” the Court observed.
The Court observed that respondents have installed CCTV to protect their safety and security. Hence, in such circumstances it cannot order removal of the CCTV Cameras.
The Court thus dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Sivasankaran @ Sankarankutty and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 8754/ 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
Counsel for Petitioners: V M Krishnakumar, P R Reena
Counsel for Respondents: S K Saju, Sreejith Cherote, Dheeraj A S (GP)