Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
A.D VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43467 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN.E., SMT.AISWARYA, SHRI.ARJUN P ASHOK KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI.DIASTUS KOMATH, SHRI.RAVI KRISHNAN, SRI.V.V.PRATHEEKSH KURUP, SC- SRI.K.J.SHENOY
Privacy rights are paramount, requiring prompt governmental response to complaints affecting personal privacy.
Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks a Writ of mandamus directing the removal of CCTV from the common area affecting the petitioner's privacy. The court found the installation of CCTV intrusive and ordered the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint expeditiously, ensuring due process. The main issues include privacy rights and procedural fairness in municipal governance. The court emphasized the necessity of timely consideration and resolution of concerns raised by the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the applicability of privacy rights in communal living. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. necessity for legal procedures in complaints. (Para 3) |
| 3. timely governmental response mandated by law. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" (A) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent, to take immediate and effective steps to remove the CCTV installed in the common area in the apartment complex ‘Harmony Enclave’ by the 4th respondent adjacent to the main door of the petitioners apartment affecting the privacy of the petitioner.
(B) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit.P5 filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent by conducting site inspection and also affording opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing within a time limit as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
(C) Allow the cost of this proceeding. "
[SIC]
2. Petitioner is aggrieved because the 4th respondent, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, installed audio and video receptive CCTV in front of the main door of the apartment of the petitioner in the common area, which affects his privacy. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 before the 3rd respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to consider the same by the 3rd respondent.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel, appearing for the Corporation. I also heard the Government Pleader. Even though notice is issued to the 4th respondent, there is no appearance.
4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 with notice to the petitioner and 4th respondent.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 and do the needful in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
