MANDATING THE INSTALLATION OF CCTV CAMERAS INSIDE SPAS

Related Articles

SOUTH CHINA SEA

September 30, 2023

Forced labour and modern-day slavery

September 28, 2023

India and Ukraine

September 27, 2023

• Recently, a Judge of the Madras High Court has said that a recent order passed by another judge of the same court, mandating the installation of CCTV cameras inside spas [massage and therapy centres], appears to run counter to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017).
• In this case, the Supreme Court declared that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 also implicitly includes a right to privacy.

Important points:

The privacy as guaranteed in Article 21 takes several different forms. It includes:

1. A right to bodily autonomy,
2. A right to informational privacy,
3. A right to a privacy of choice.

Thus, the installation of CCTV equipment inside premises such as a spa would unquestionably go against a person’s bodily autonomy.

These are inviolable spaces where the prying eye of the State cannot be allowed to enter.

• The reach of the fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by any judicial measure.
• It held that, though no right can be absolute, restrictions can be put in place only by the legislature or the executive.
• Apart from it, the Supreme Court alone can do so in exercise of its power under Article 142.

Right to Privacy

• Generally understood that privacy is synonymous with the right to be let alone.
• The Supreme Court described privacy and its importance in the landmark decision of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017.
• The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
• The Puttaswamy judgement holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Restrictions (as stated in the Judgement):

The right may be restricted only by state action that passes each of the three tests:

1. First, such state action must have a legislative mandate.
2. Second, it must be pursuing a legitimate state purpose, and
3. Third, it must be proportionate i.e., such state action- both in its nature and extent, must be necessary in a democratic society and the action ought to be the least intrusive of the available alternatives to accomplish the ends.

SOURCE: THE HINDU,THE ECONOMIC TIMES,MINT