- Rejecting a request by the police to install CCTV cameras inside two clubs and recreation centres to check gambling and other illegal activities, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of MM Nagar Sports & Recreation Centre and Anr v The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, observed that such installation would be in violation of right to privacy of the visitors and members of the club.
- The Court observed that casting doubt on every visitor and subjecting them to a CCTV surveillance is irrational and branding every visitor as capable of committing an offence in the nature of betting/ wagering is an indication of a narrow and archaic mindset.
- The Court however directed the club owners to install CCTV cameras at the entrance and exit of the club and also in areas where games are played by the members.
- The Petitioner is a club registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1978 and conducted permitted gaming and recreational activities in the club. The Petitioner, along with another, approached the Court with a grievance that Police Officials interfered with the peaceful functioning of the club causing embarassment to the members to the club, some of whom were prominent personalities.
- It was also argued that the members of the Police force below the rank of a sub-inspector entered the club premises causing inconvenience to the club members, which was a clear violation of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Gambling Act, 1930.
- It was also stated that the Police’s stand of installing CCTV cameras at all places within the club, including corridors and play areas was unacceptable since it would directly lead to infringement of members’ privacy. To support their argument, the Petitioner placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Justice K.S. Puttuswamy and Anr v UOI & Ors.
- Agreeing with the Petitioner’s claim the Court observed that suspicions, however strong, cannot take place of proof. It also remarked that when a statute makes it clear for a certain procedure to be followed, insistence on installation of the CCTV cameras doesn’t bode well with the dictum laid down by the Apex Court.
- The Court examined the relevant paras of the Puttuswamy ruling on constant surveillance and remarked that constant gaze of the Police through CCTVs would make a person right to privacy redundant and will offend and deprive his cherished right for the sake of the alleged offender.
- The Police cannot traverse beyond the legal framework and assume that every person visiting the club may commit an offence. The legal maxim "necessitas publica estmajor quam privata" meaning 'public necessity is greater thanprivate necessity' can be looked into only when an overwhelmingpublic interest overrides private interest of a few individuals. However, where there is suspicion on only a few members, scrutinising everyone doesn’t have a rational nexus.
- In light of the above, it was held that the Petitioner need not install CCTV cameras inside the premise. However, they must be placed at the entrance and no police officer shall attend the premise unnecessarily and no attempt shall be made to access CCTV footage that infringed right to privacy of other members.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
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!!"
