The Allahabad High Court recently held that a private CCTV camera cannot be installed in a manner that infringes upon a neighbour’s privacy. The ruling came after a petitioner complained that his neighbours’ camera captured people entering and leaving his house. The court directed him to approach the district magistrate, who must decide his application within a month. The ruling raises a larger question: when does a security camera become a tool of intrusiveness?Justices Ajit Kumar and Garima Prashad observed in the October 26 order that the petitioner’s neighbours had positioned their CCTV camera in a manner that interfered with the privacy of persons visiting his residence. He argued that it also violated his privacy. “In our considered view, no private CCTV camera can be installed and positioned in such a manner as to interfere with the privacy of a neighbour,” the order read.In September, the Union Health Minister had proposed mandatory CCTV surveillance at medical stores to restrain the abuse of drugs. The draft proposal also called for maintaining the recordings for three months.Speaking to The Indian Express, advocate Ashima Mandla said that putting up a camera for your own safety is fine, “But once it is aimed at someone else’s entrance, it is no longer security. It is surveillance. The Allahabad High Court has now said this in plain words: no private CCTV camera can be installed or positioned to interfere with a neighbour’s privacy.”Explaining the legal remedies, Mandla said, “A person facing this can approach the District Magistrate or a civil court for an injunction, and if a woman is being watched or followed, the stalking and voyeurism provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) may also apply.”Although there is no blanket prohibition on installing CCTV cameras, the wider question is whether they can be positioned in a way that keeps another household under surveillance.When can CCTV surveillance attract criminal liability?In its landmark 2017 judgment in K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, “and the sanctity of one’s home lies at its core.”Story continues below this ad“A CCTV camera that records a neighbour’s house, entrance or visitors is a clear infringement of privacy,” Mandla said, adding, “Who comes to a family’s door, and when, is their business alone.”To ascertain the illegality of capturing someone else’s household, the camera’s positioning, purpose for which it is installed and the area that it covers become important aspects to determine whether it amounts to an invasion of privacy.Explaining the legal position, advocate Jayant Singh Chauhan said that India does not have one central law covering every aspect of CCTV use by private homeowners. Instead, several laws work together with the right to privacy recognised by the Supreme Court of India. “This protects a person’s home, family life and dignity, and guides courts when deciding disputes over intrusive surveillance. Installing a camera on your own wall does not give you an unlimited right to record what happens inside someone else’s home,” he said.Story continues below this adChauhan explained that the Specific Relief Act and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allow residents to seek court orders against intrusive surveillance. The Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita may apply where the recording amounts to a specific criminal offence. He pointed out that local rules, police directions and housing society rules may also govern installation, especially in shared areas. “There is no single nationwide rule requiring a neighbour’s permission just because a camera captures part of a public road. However, neither society permission nor a ‘CCTV in operation’ sign makes an invasion of privacy lawful,” he said.‘Can’t turn neighbourhoods into continuous surveillance spaces’Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa said that the Allahabad High Court ruling rightly recognises that the legitimate objective of security cannot become a justification for invading the privacy and dignity of others.“In today’s urban residential environment, CCTV cameras are increasingly being installed indiscriminately by individuals outside their homes, on gates, balconies, boundary walls and common passages. While security is a legitimate concern, such installations often end up capturing the entrances, movements, visitors and even private moments of neighbouring families,” he said.Story continues below this adPahwa referred to the Puttaswamy judgment on privacy law and added, “I believe there is a need to evolve appropriate guidelines to ensure that private CCTV installations are confined to legitimate security requirements and do not unnecessarily capture the interior of neighbouring houses, their entrances or areas where families enjoy reasonable expectations of privacy.”Where necessary, the senior advocate said, authorities must reposition cameras, mask adjoining private areas, or take other appropriate corrective measures so technology “must protect our homes” and not turn our neighbourhoods into spaces of continuous surveillance. “The right to security cannot be exercised at the cost of another person’s right to privacy,” he said.Data protection lawThe Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 needs to be understood carefully, Chauhan said. “Its main duties and individual rights are scheduled to take effect on 13 May 2027.” As of now, it excludes personal data processed by an individual for personal or domestic purposes, although cameras operated by housing or commercial entities may require a different assessment.He added, “In practical terms, cameras should focus on the area requiring protection, avoid neighbouring private spaces, and have secure footage with limited access and sharing. These are sensible safeguards, rather than identical legal requirements for every home.”Story continues below this adSection 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, punishes the intentional or knowing capture, publication, or transmission of a person’s private area without their consent. Whereas, Section 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 punishes the offence of voyeurism, where a man watches or captures an image of a woman engaging in a private act. These provisions, however, do not make every instance of CCTV camera recording of a neighbour’s movement an offence.In the last few decades, use of CCTV has become a significant tool for enhancement of safety and protection of the public, but it also has become a threat for potential invasion of someone else’s privacy. To maintain the equilibrium, it calls for legal regulations to strike a balance between the right to privacy and disclosure of information obtained through the cameras.In 2018, the commencement of the Delhi Rules for Regulation of CCTV Systems in NCT of Delhi established a set of rules to be followed for reporting CCTV systems in public spaces. It includes every owner reporting to the appropriate authority, disclosing the number, location, and purpose of the CCTV, and other such details, including the manner of usage, and storing the data.CCTV footage cannot be provided directly under RTIIn the September ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that CCTV footage cannot be provided directly to an applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it is exempted under the law.Story continues below this adJustice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, however, clarified that a court or competent commission could direct the preservation and production of CCTV footage if a person files a complaint before the appropriate forum.‘In our view, the petitioner has, till date, not filed any complaint before any Court or Commission and has simpliciter sought the CCTV footage. In our view, the said footage cannot be provided to the petitioner directly, as the same is covered by the exception contained in Section 8(1)(g) of the Act, 2005′, the court noted in its order dated September 1.Exemptions under RTISection 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 lists categories of information that public authorities are not obliged to disclose. These include information affecting national security, information prohibited by courts, privileged legislative material, trade secrets, fiduciary and confidential information, and information received from foreign governments.It also exempts information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or safety, impede investigations, or invade an individual’s privacy. Cabinet papers are also protected until a decision is taken, and the matter is complete. Several exemptions may nevertheless be overridden where the competent authority finds that a larger public interest warrants disclosure