Disposed

Agnes Michale v. Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC13 Feb 2024WP(C)/1485/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition regarding alleged privacy invasion by a private CCTV camera. Instead of adjudicating the claim immediately, the Court ordered the Station House Officer to conduct a site visit, hear parties, and determine if the installation violates the petitioner's rights or was placed in a public space.

What did the court decide?

Directs the station house officer to visit the site, hear parties, and take immediate action; if camera is in public space, report to secretary for action under Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

Agnes Michale Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AGNES MICHALE, AGED 46,
W/O.P.D. BABU, KALLARACKAL HOUSE,
CHERANELLOOR P.O., KOCHI 682 034.

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
CHITHRA C.EDADAN
NABIL KHADER

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CHERANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 683 544.

¶11

2THE SECRETARY,
CHERANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHERANELLOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN: 683 544.

¶12

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 034.

¶13

4 RAJU ANTONY, AGED 49, S/O. ANTONY, NADUVILEPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN: 682 034.

¶14

*ADDL.R5 STATE POLICE CHIEF, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695010.

¶15

IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 IN WP(C).

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

¶18

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶19

-2-

¶20

Shaji Thomas
MOHAN PULIKKAL(K/64A/1985)
JEN JAISON(K/000208/2017)
SRI.P.S.APPU, GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶23

-3-

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner alleges that the 4th
respondent is intruding into her privacy, by
installing CCTV Camera facing her house and
property; and that, therefore, she has

¶26

approached respondents 1 to 3, to take necessary
action to remove the same, which has not yet
been heeded. She says that she has, therefore,
been constrained to approach this Court; and
prays that the official respondents be directed
to take immediate steps to dismantle the CCTV
Camera installed by the 4th respondent, as
evident from Ext.P1 photograph.

¶27

2.In response to the afore submissions of

¶28

Sri.K.R.Vinod – learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader –

¶30

Sri.P.S.Appu, submitted that the 3rd respondent –

¶31

Station House Officer, had made a visit to the

¶32

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶33

-4-

¶34

area in question, to find that the CCTC Camera

¶35

installed by the 4th respondent is pointing to a
public road and not into the property of the
petitioner. He submitted that, therefore, the
petitioner cannot have a case of intrusion of
privacy; but that, if this Court is so inclined,
the said Authority is willing to hear both sides
and take a final decision.

¶36

3.Sri.Shaji Thomas – learned counsel for
the 4threspondent, submitted that the

¶37

allegations of the petitioner are wholly untrue
and that his client has not placed any CCTV
Camera in any manner so as to intrude into the
privacy of the petitioner. He submitted that the
said Camera has been installed only for the sake
of his client’s security and no other; and
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.

¶38

4.Sri.P.K.Ajith Kumar – learned Standing

¶39

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶40

Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that

¶41

his clients have no role to play in the

¶42

controversy in question because, what is
projected by the petitioner is an inappropriate

¶43

action by the 4th respondent – if her allegations
are true.

¶44

5.Inreply,however,Sri.K.R.Vinod

¶45

submitted that, as evident from Ext.P1
photograph itself, the CCTV Camera in question

¶46

has been installed by the 4th respondent in a

¶47

public space, which itself is illegal and
unlawful; for which, both respondents 1 and 2,
as also respondent No.3, must take necessary
action. He submitted that, therefore, his client

¶48

is entitled to press for the reliefs sought for
in this writ petition and pleaded that it be
granted.

¶49

6.When I evaluate and consider the afore

¶50

rival submissions, it is clear that there is a

¶51

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶52

-6-

¶53

disputation as to whether the CCTV Camera

¶54

installed by the 4th respondent is in a public
space and whether it is directed towards the
petitioner’s property or her house, thus
violating her privacy. These issues certainly
will have to be first looked into by the 3rd
respondent; and, if he is to find that the first
of the afore limbs are attracted, then he must

¶55

report it to the 2nd respondent – secretary, for
necessary and appropriate actions.

¶56

7.As far as the jurisdictional Police

¶57

Officer is concerned, if any of the afore
allegations are found true, he must issue

¶58

necessary orders to the 4th respondent, as also
take necessary action against him, in terms of

¶59

the Indian Penal Code and such other applicable
provisions.

¶60

In the afore circumstances, I order this
writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent to

¶61

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶62

-7-

¶63

immediately hear the petitioner, as also the 4th
respondent, and make a site visit in their
presence; thus culminating in an appropriate

¶64

order and necessary action thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
one week from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.

¶65

Needless to say, if, through the afore
exercise, the 3rd respondent is to find that the
CCTV Camera has been installed by the 4th
respondent in a public space, he will report the
same to the 2nd respondent – Secretary, who will
thereupon take necessary action in terms of the

¶66

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or such other

¶67

applicable provisions, without any avoidable
delay thereafter.

¶68

After I dictated this part of the judgment,

¶69

Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader,
pointed out that, in obedience to the interim

¶70

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶71

order of this Court dated 17.01.2023, the State
Police Chief has recommended certain Guidelines
for the installation of CCTV Cameras in public
spaces or involving public spaces; and that the
matter is now pending before the Government for
appropriate orders. This is recorded.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

akv

¶76

WP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2023

¶77

-9-

¶78

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1485/2023

¶79

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶80

EXHIBIT P1THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
INSTALLATION OF CCTV CAMERA POINTING
AT THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER

¶81

EXHIBIT P2THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2 ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2022
EXHIBIT P3THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE
RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT BY THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT

¶82

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶83

EXHIBIT R4( A)TTRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 23.06.2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT

¶84

EXHIBIT R4( B)TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF
THE DVR MONITIOR WHICH SHOWS THE VIDEO
CAPTURED BY THE CCTV CAMERA ALLEGED TO
BE KEPT FACING THE HOME OF THE
PETITIONER

Agnes Michale v. Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agnes Michale v. Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Safeermon a Vs Remla Beevi I

Shine Mathew Vs Remla Beevi . I

K Manoharan, Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Rency George Vs Mohammed Ali

M.K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

M.M. Varughese Vs Kerala Water Authority