In the landmark ruling of Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick the Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court of Calcutta that it is violation of the right to privacy if the CCTV cameras are installed without the permission of co-occupants or co-trustees in residential areas.
Brief details on Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
| Name of the Case | Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick |
| Equivalent Citations | (SLP(C) No. 12384/2025) |
| Parties of the Case | Petitioner – Mr. Indranil MullickRespondent – Mr. Shuvendra Mullick |
| Advocates of parties | Petitioner: 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.Respondents: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate; Mr. Siddharth, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Prateek Goyal, Advocate; Mr. Harshit Manwani, Advocate. |
| Type of the Case | Special Leave Petition |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case | Article 21 of the Constitution |
| Bench | Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan |
| Judgement Date | 10.02.2025 |
Background of the case
The case is a family dispute between two brothers, Indranil Mullick and Shuvendra Mullick. Both of them are co-occupants of a property called Mullick Bhaban located in Kolkata. The said property was managed by a private trust which was created by their father Late Gora Chand Mullick. Indranil in the year 2022 installed 9 CCTV cameras in the property without asking his brother who was a co-occupant of the property. Out of 9, 5 of the cameras were entirely positioned towards his brother Shuvendra ‘s bedroom and other private living spaces. Shuvendra contended that installation of such CCTV cameras without his consent violates his right to privacy.
Legal provision involved in this case
Article 21 of the Constitution
The Article of the Constitution of India gives the right to life and personal liberty. The article also includes the right to privacy. In this case installing a camera without the permission of a co-occupant infringed his right to privacy in the property (living space). Installation of CCTV is considered as a violation of Shuvendra’s right to privacy.
Key issues involved in Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
- Whether installing CCTV cameras without the permission of co-occupants or co-trustees in a shared dwelling violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the consent of all co-trustees or co-occupants is legally required to install CCTV cameras in residential areas?
Grounds raised by the appellant in Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
The appellant argued that installation of CCTV cameras in the property was done and required to ensure the safety. As there were many valuable antiques and artworks in the property it was important to have such surveillance. He further argued that he had placed all the cameras in such a way that it prevented theft and would improve the security of the property. Indranil further said that he was ready to change the direction of the cameras and also let his brother see the footage which was recorded.
Grounds raised by the respondent in Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
The respondent (Shuvendra) in the case argued that installing CCTV cameras in the residential premises without his permission violated his right to privacy. The respondent further stated that installing such cameras near his bedroom violated his rights. He had raised the same concern towards his brother as well but he had taken no action which had forced him to take a legal course.
Judgement in Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta HIgh Court. The petition made by Indranil Mullick was dismissed. They made it clear that you cannot violate a person’s privacy without his permission even if you both are living in the same house. The Supreme Court further stated that if any other changes are needed then the said party can reach the High Court of Calcutta.
Conclusion
The right of privacy is reinforced in the case of Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick even when the property is shared between people. The Apex Court highlighted the importance of the right to privacy under Article 21. The personal liberty of the person is violated when you install CCTV cameras without their consent in a shared residential place. With this landmark judgement the court has drawn a clear boundary on using the CCTV cameras in shared dwellings. The importance of mutual respect and consent is highlighted in this case.
