Introduction
‘Facial Recognition Technology’ has become more and more predominant in Society as technology has developed over time. We have transitioned from a period where we required a high-quality and expensive camera with an experienced photographer to take a single photo to a point where any layperson can take a photo, such was the development we have witnessed. Pertinent to this evolutionary technology is the Critical Presence of CCTV Cameras.
In a Period where CCTV cameras are being deployed and established across society in the name of Crime Prevention, blurring the line between privacy and safety, the Madras High Court reaffirmed the relevance of Privacy in open areas/public spaces in the Case of R. Azhagappan v. The District Collector and Others, W.P(MD)No.9457 of 2026.
Factual Background of the Dispute
In this case, the Petitioner, who is the President of the Ayacut Association, expressed concern about the use of the lake for illegal Activities, such as fishing, earth mining, and other illegal activities in the tanks. To Prevent Such a Criminal Activity. The Petitioner sought permission to install 5 CCTV Cameras, but the Respondents have refused permission.
The association offered to install the Cameras at their own expense, and despite this, the court dismissed the petition due to a significant privacy risk and held that the Petitioners’ action is disproportionate to the illegal activities transpiring around the lake.
Legal Issues Before The Court
- Whether the Act of installing CCTV Cameras surrounding a Village Lake is Legally Valid under the given Circumstances
- Whether Such an Act of Surveillance Violates the Right to Privacy and the Proportionality Test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Vs Union of India (2017 (10) SCC) (“Justice Puttaswamy Judgment”).
Contentions of The Parties
The Primary Argument of the Petitioner was that he is the President of the Ayacut Association with a vested Interest in the tank and has a share in the fishing rights, and argued that the anti-social activities were damaging the water bodies, which necessitated the installation of CCTV Cameras.
The Petitioner further contended that the absence of specific enabling provisions does not justify the rejection of his request to install CCTV Cameras when the association offered to install the Cameras at their own expense, as it is for the welfare and maintenance of the tank.
On the contrary, the Respondent submitted that tanks are under the tanks are under the control of the Water Resources Department and that the Petitioner, despite being the president of the ayacut association, does not have any right over the control over it, and the Respondent emphasised that the water body is utilised for multiple purposes, which includes bathing by women and surveillance in such area is neither necessary nor appropriate.
The Constitutional Framework Governing Surveillance and its Applicability
The Madras High Court maintained that the installation of CCTV Cameras in publicly accessible areas may be justified if it can satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy Judgment wherein it clarified that an individual’s right to Privacy can only be breached if they fulfil the test of Proportionality: (i) existence of law, to justify the breach of privacy (ii) The Breach of Privacy must serve a legitimate State Aim, and (iii) it must be proportional to the means taken to reach the objective.
The Court used proportionality as a benchmark to find out that the proposed installation of CCTV in the village water bodies was constitutionally justified. The Petitioner’s motive of stopping illegal fishing and unauthorised earth mining was good, but the Court said that the constant monitoring of the entire village lake by CCTV was excessive.
The court also recognised the importance of village lakes and their environment as a place for the community to come together, to enjoy recreation and to socialise. In rural areas, private living space may be scarce, and these areas may serve as semi-private areas where people have some level of privacy. The Court thus concluded that blanket surveillance would be too intrusive. The Court found that the proposed installation of CCTVs was not proportionate or legally authorised and therefore could not be allowed.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The ruling in R. Azhagappan v. District Collector is a significant development in the developing privacy law in India. Although CCTV surveillance is considered a tool for security and to prevent illegal activities, the judgment points out that it cannot be implemented without respecting the constitutional principle of proportionality. Importantly, the Court recognised that there may be legitimate interests in privacy in rural public settings that are worthy of protection.
The ruling also establishes that private companies cannot spy on people without explicit legal authorization and protection. The Court has struck a balance between the public interest and the privacy of individuals, and it has held that the constitutional freedoms are more important than the overbroad surveillance. The judgment is a suitable reminder that the technological solutions to governance problems should always be built on legal, necessary and fundamental rights respecting foundations.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with mridusha.guha@amlegals.com or Khilansha.mukhija@amlegals.com