- The Madras HC has overruled a single-bench decision given in C.P.Girija vs. Superintendent of Police and Ors. and has stated that installation of CCTV cameras in the private spaces inside the massage parlour would necessarily infringe upon a person’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
- In the instant case titled Payel Biswas vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City and Ors. the Hon’ble Court has observed that the decision in C.P.Girija case given above clearly violates the principles laid down in the Right to Privacy case (K.S.Puttaswamy vs. Union of India) by the Hon’ble SC.
- A day after the passing of the C.P.Girija judgement, a writ petition was disposed of by Justice Swaminathan regarding the grant of a NOC certificate by the police to a spa located in Trichy. The Court also asked the police not to interfere with the functioning of the spa and massage centre if the same is being done in accordance with law. To this, the Government Pleader referred to the single judge decision in C.P.Girija case and about the police frequenting such business premises.
- The Court, while agreeing that a bench cannot take a contrary view to another bench of the same strength (coordinate benches) according to the guidelines laid down in S.Kasi vs. State (AIR 2020 SC) observed that since guidelines with regards to violation of privacy have been laid down by the Supreme Court, reliance can be placed on article 141 of the Constitution (law declared by SC binding on all courts within the territory of India).
- The Hon’ble Court noted that the judgement given in C.P.Girija directs the installation of cameras not in public spaces but in intimate, private spaces. Referring to the decision in K.S.Puttaswamy, the Court observed that any invasion on life or personal liberty ensured under Article 21 would have to meet the requirements of legality, need and proportionality (nexus with the objective). Unless the legislature mandates by law that CCTV cameras ought to be installed in a certain space (here, the private space inside a spa), it would stand in violation of Article 21.
- Referring to the notification issued under Section 373 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, the Court observed that the installation of CCTV cameras was mandated only at the entry and exit point of the premises of the establishment.
- The Court also stressed on an important point, that the scope of the fundamental rights cannot be restricted or curtailed by a Court’s order when the legislature or the executive has already put regulations in place. The same can only be done by the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- Thus, disposing of the writ petition, the Court also directed the authorities to abstain from unnecessary interference with the businesses if the NOC is issued.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
