Supreme Court Rulings On Unauthorized Video Surveillance
India's Supreme Court has addressed various aspects of unauthorized video surveillance, particularly concerning privacy rights and the admissibility of such evidence. While specific rulings on unauthorized video surveillance are limited, several cases have touched upon related issues, shaping the legal framework in this area. Below is an analysis of key cases and legislative developments:
1. Right to Privacy and Unauthorized Surveillance
In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This judgment has significant implications for unauthorized video surveillance, as any such activity must now be justified under the strict scrutiny of constitutional safeguards.
2. Admissibility of Unauthorized Video Evidence
The Court has also dealt with the admissibility of video recordings obtained without consent. In the case of Munikrishna @ Krishna v. State by Ulsoor Police Station (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that video-recorded police confessions, made without following legal procedures, are inadmissible as evidence. This decision underscores the necessity of adhering to established legal protocols when obtaining video evidence.
3. CCTV Surveillance in Residential Spaces
The Supreme Court has reinforced that the right to privacy extends to shared living spaces. In a recent case, the Court upheld the Calcutta High Court's ruling that CCTV cameras cannot be installed inside a shared residential property without the consent of all occupants. This judgment emphasizes that unauthorized surveillance within a home constitutes a violation of privacy rights.
4. Suo Motu Cognizance of Non-Functional CCTV Cameras
In response to reports highlighting the absence of functional CCTV cameras in police stations, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue. The Court registered a case to address the lack of surveillance infrastructure, which is crucial for ensuring accountability and transparency in law enforcement agencies.
5. Regulation of Digital Surveillance Technologies
The Supreme Court has also addressed the use of digital surveillance technologies, such as spyware. In a significant ruling, the Court held that the unauthorized use of spyware for surveillance violates the right to privacy. This decision has implications for the regulation of digital surveillance tools and emphasizes the need for legal frameworks to govern their use.
These cases illustrate the Supreme Court's approach to unauthorized video surveillance, balancing the need for security and law enforcement with the protection of individual privacy rights. The Court has consistently emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and obtaining necessary consents when engaging in surveillance activities.
RELATED Blog
0 comments