By Sujit Bhar
In a recent judgment with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court upheld a Calcutta High Court ruling that installation of CCTV cameras within a shared ancestral home without the consent of all occupants—who were relatives—violated the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the case may appear minor on the surface, it opens a Pandora’s box of questions about the limits of privacy, particularly within India’s traditional joint family structures.
The dispute originated in Mullick Bhaban, an old and prominent residence in Kolkata. The property, under a private trust created by the late Gora Chand Mullick, became the epicentre of a legal battle when Shuvendra Mullick—initially excluded from the trust, but later reinstated—alleged that his extended family had installed 15 surveillance cameras without his consent. Crucially, at least five cameras allegedly surveilled his private spaces, including his bedroom entrance, corridor, and balcony—areas not deemed common property.
The case, though limited in scope, has cast a spotlight on broader implications of India’s evolving privacy jurisprudence and the recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023.
THE DPDP ACT AND ITS REACH
India’s DPDP Act empowers individuals with control over their personal data. Among its key tenets are:
Consent-based processing: Data must not be collected or used without the individual’s clear consent.
Rights of data principals: Individuals can access, correct, delete, or review the handling of their data.
Duties of data fiduciaries: Entities must safeguard data and prevent unauthorized use.
Applied to the Mullick Bhaban dispute, these provisions mean Shuvendra can legally demand access to any footage involving him, seek its deletion, and challenge any unauthorized sharing.
FAULTLINES IN THE JOINT FAMILY
India’s traditional joint family system thrives on shared living and collective responsibility. But as personal privacy gains legal heft, this structure faces fresh challenges. The same law that protects individual liberty could also disrupt the trust and transparency that sustain familial living.
For instance, in emergencies—such as medical crises—gaining access to a family member’s health data without their consent could prove legally difficult, possibly delaying timely intervention. Likewise, financial and legal collaboration within families could be hindered by strict data-sharing rules.
DOMESTIC ABUSE AND PRIVACY TRADE-OFFS
The Indian Evidence Act (Section 122) already prevents one spouse from testifying about private communications with the other. Now, with stronger digital privacy laws, extended families may find it even harder to detect or intervene in cases of domestic abuse. CCTV monitoring, though invasive, has sometimes served as an informal tool of oversight in such cases. The law now compels a more nuanced approach.
NAVIGATING THE TIGHTROPE
The judgment has ignited a debate that goes far beyond one home in Kolkata.
While privacy is non-negotiable in a constitutional democracy, Indian society must reckon with the friction it introduces into familial intimacy and collective welfare. Solutions could include:
Family-specific consent protocols for emergencies.
Awareness campaigns about the nuances of the DPDP Act.
Legal exceptions for data sharing in cases of domestic violence or abuse.
The challenge lies in harmonizing modern privacy rights with the ethos of collective living—an ethos that, while rooted in tradition, must now coexist with evolving digital norms.
The post Privacy vs Kinship appeared first on India Legal.