Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J
R.Thirupuram – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai. – Respondent
Writ Petition Criminal
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.John Sathyan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Rajesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2, Mr.V.Vidyesh for Mr.Duraivelu
CCTV installation allowed in own premises if not infringing privacy of co-occupants.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought mandamus for police protection and permission to install CCTV cameras due to safety concerns amid property disputes. The court found that CCTV installation is permissible within the petitioner's occupied portion without infringing on others' privacy. Issues framed involved balancing security needs against privacy rights in shared premises. The ratio decidendi emphasized restricting surveillance to one's own space to protect privacy under the law. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for police protection during the event and conditional CCTV approval.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for cctv due to safety concerns. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on privacy vs. security in property dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court permits conditional cctv installation respecting privacy. (Para 6) |
| 4. police protection ordered for family event; petition disposed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner, a senior citizen residing at No.12, Canal Bank Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai has submitted a representation, stating that she intended to install CCTV camera in her residence for the purpose of ensuring her safety and security, particularly in view of her age and health ailments. However, the same was objected to by her relative namely, Pradeep, who claims a right over the aforesaid property, stating that his father Duraivelu, aged about 85 years and also a senior citizen residing in the same premises, would be subjected to surveillance, thereby affecting his privacy and causing inconvenience.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the installation of CCTV camera is purely for security purpose and does not, in any manner, interfering the privacy of Duraivelu or his family members. Further, he submitted that the first death anniversary of the petitioner's husband is scheduled to be held on 27.04.2026, and there is an apprehension of disturbance during the said function.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's complaint has been enquired into and that there exists a property dispute between the petitioner and her relatives, who are residing in the aforesaid premises, measuring about 1,200 sq.ft. The petitioner occupies one portion administering 600 sq.ft., while the remaining portion is occupied by Duraivelu and his family. There is a dispute with regard to the partition of property. It is further submitted that when the petitioner attempted to install the CCTV camera on 25.03.2026, objections were raised, necessitating police intervention. He further submitted that if the installation does not infringe upon the privacy or enjoyment of the other occupants, necessary police can be given for such installation.
4. The learned counsel appearing for Duraivelu submitted that the petitioner is claiming the portion of the Duraivelu and that an existing camera is already in that place, which would serve the purpose of the petitioner. He further contended that installation of an additional camera would cause annoyance and interfere with the privacy of Duraivelu and his family. He further submitted that there exists a separate passage for the petitioner at the rear side, which is presently not using the same, and that the proposed installation is intended to obstruct the movement in the front portion.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is not inclined to enter into the dispute and the rivalry between the petitioner and the Duraivelu. Insofar as the installation of CCTV camera is concerned, the petitioner can install the same within the portion under her occupation, provided that such installation does not record the portion occupied by Duraivelu and his family, thereby ensuring that their right to privacy is not infringed.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought police protection for the petitioner's husband's first death anniversary scheduled on 27.04.2026, expressing apprehension of disturbance, on the ground that the Pradeep, who is son of Duraivelu, is serving as an Inspector of Police and is in the Special investigation team, and he may influence the local police.
8. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the Duraivelu undertakes that although Pradeep is serving in the Police Department, he has not involved in the dispute between his father and the petitioner.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Police are directed to take into ac
