Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition disposed with directions to conduct an...

O.J. Joseph v. District Police Chief, Alappuzha & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 6134 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-06
Court Decision / Holding
The court directed the 1st respondent to appoint an officer of appropriate rank to conduct an enquiry after hearing both sides, and to complete it expeditiously, not later than one month from the date of the judgment. If any violation is found, necessary action to avert it shall be taken. This interim measure aims to ensure that no law is violated while balancing privacy rights with law and order concerns.
Final Disposition
Petition disposed with directions to conduct an enquiry into alleged privacy concerns by appointing an appropriate officer of the District Police Chief within one month, after hearing both sides; if any violation is found, take necessary action.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • O.J. Joseph

Respondents

  • District Police Chief, Alappuzha
  • Station House Officer, Chengannur Police Station
  • Jiji John
  • P. T. John
  • Stephen
  • K. P. Thomas
  • Rachel Thomas

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V. Philip Mathews
  • • Ashish Mathew John
  • • P. K. Ajithkumar

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sunil K. KuriaKose
  • • K. S. Hariharaputhran
  • • Pinku Mariam Jose
  • • K. M. Fathima

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, O.J. Joseph, a trader in Chengannur, filed WP(C) 6134/2024 alleging that respondents 3 to 7 have installed CCTV cameras at or around his commercial premises to monitor his customers, thereby invading his privacy. He relies on the constitutional right to privacy recognized by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy and others v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC I and seeks an order directing the District Police Chief to remove the cameras and prevent further surveillance. The respondents 3–7 deny wrongdoing, asserting they installed cameras in response to allegations from the petitioner that they were removing his board and engaging in other acts; they claim they have no interest in the petitioner’s business or customers and urge dismissal of the petition. The Government Pleader reports a preliminary inquiry finding no privacy breach, while offering to arrange a hearing if the petitioner requests. The judge expresses weight to the respondents’ position but finds a duty on the District Police Chief to ensure no law is violated, and to act. Consequently, the court directs an enquiry by an officer of appropriate rank, after hearing both sides, to be completed within one month, with orders to avert any violations if found. The order balances privacy rights with law and order concerns pending final resolution.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that respondents 3 to 7 have installed CCTV cameras inside and around his commercial premises to spy on his customers. He asserts this conduct violates his fundamental right to privacy as laid down in the K.S. Puttaswamy decision and reflects an unlawful inference into his business affairs. The petitioner submits that the cameras were installed with the intent to monitor and intimidate, causing a chilling effect on his clientele and undermining the security of his trade. He seeks a writ directing the District Police Chief to remove the cameras and to ensure that no further surveillance of his customers occurs, arguing that the remedy lies under constitutional guarantees of privacy and under statutory protections against harassment. He requests a fair hearing and a prompt, authoritative order to disgorge the cameras, or at least to ensure that the cameras do not intrude upon customers or transactions. The petitioner emphasizes the need for balance between public safety and individual privacy and asks the court to provide urgent relief to prevent ongoing encroachment while the matter is investigated.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 3 to 7 submitted that they have not installed cameras to breach the petitioner’s privacy but acted under necessity due to his repeated, frivolous complaints, including allegations that they were removing his business board. They asserted no interest in the petitioner’s customers or business operations and asked that the petition be dismissed. They claimed there is no infringing surveillance, and any enforcement or remedial action should come from the appropriate civil or criminal process. Counsel for respondents argued that if privacy concerns exist, the proper course is to approach the competent court and obtain orders, not to prematurely halt lawful commercial activities. They added that the district police have already begun a preliminary inquiry and that, if required, a hearing could be held, but that the petition should not interfere with routine governance. They urged the court to acknowledge the government’s interest in maintaining order and to rely on due process rather than hurried extraordinary relief. The respondents contend the writ petition risks mischaracterizing lawful surveillance as infringement of privacy.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others(2017) 10 SCC IPositiveCited to establish and support the constitutional right to privacy, which the petitioner invokes in alleging invasion of privacy by CCTV surveillance.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against O.J. Joseph v. District Police Chief, Alappuzha & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` O.J. JOSEPH AGED 59 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, URUVANCHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCAVU MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689122 BY ADVS. V.PHILIP MATHEWS ASHISH MATHEW JOHN P.K.AJITHKUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ALAPPUZHA CCSB RD, MUKHAM PURAYIDOM, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012` - `2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121` - `3 JIJI JOHN AGED 48 YEARS W/O.P.T.JOHN, PULIKKOTTIL VEETTIL, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121` - `4 P.T. JOHN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.P.N. THECHAN, PULIKKOTTIL VEETTIL, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121` - `5 STEPHEN AGED 30 YEARS S/O.P.T.JOHN, PULIKKOTTIL VEETTIL, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121` - `6 K. P. THOMAS AGED 75 YEARS KARIMGATTIL HOUSE, WARD NO.III 06 CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNDANCAVU, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK CHENGANNUR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121` - `7 RACHEL THOMAS AGED 70 YEARS` ``` WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` W/O. K.P.THOMAS KARIMGATTIL HOUSE, WARD NO.III 06 CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNDANCAVU, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK CHENGANNUR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689121 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN PINKU MARIAM JOSE(K/749/2015) K.M.FATHIMA(K/003174/2022) ``` ``` SRI.SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP FOR R1 & R2 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` The petitioner alleges that respondents 3 to ``` ``` 7 have installed Close circuit Television Camera (CCTV) in such a manner so as to pry into his ``` ``` business to keep a tab on his customers in his commercial establishment. He, therefore, prays that the 1[st] respondent – District Police Chief, be directed to take appropriate action to remove ``` ``` the said cameras – which, he asserts, has been installed in violation of his constitutional ``` ``` right of privacy, as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others [(2017) 10 SCC I]. ``` ``` 2.In response to the afore submissions of ``` ``` the petitioner, as made by the learned counsel – Sri.V.Philip Mathews, Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran – learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7, ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` submitted that his clients have not installed any camera to breach the privacy of the petitioner; but that they have been forced to do so, since he has been making frivolous complaints against them, including that they are removing his board and such other. He added that his client has ``` ``` absolutely no interest in the business activities of the petitioner, nor in his customers; and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. ``` ``` 3.Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned ``` ``` Government Pleader, submitted that the 1[st] ``` ``` respondent has already caused a preliminary ``` ``` investigation to the complaint of the petitioner, ``` ``` to find that the installed CCTV cameras do not, in fact, breach his privacy. He, however, added that, if the petitioner requires a hearing by the 1[st] respondent, he will not stand in the way of ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` appropriate orders being issued; however, arguing that, normally, in such matters, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Criminal Court and obtain necessary orders. ``` ``` 4.I must say that the afore submissions of Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose carries weight because, if there is a violation of privacy, or breach of law, on account of the installation of the ``` ``` cameras by respondents 3 to 7, it is for the ``` ``` petitioner to approach the competent Court and initiate necessary action. ``` ``` 5.However, since there is a duty cast upon the 1[st] respondent to ensure that no law is violated and that any offence is averted, I deem it appropriate to direct him to cause an enquiry, ``` ``` through an appropriate officer of his choice, after hearing both sides. ``` **==> picture [408 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` respondent to appoint an officer of appropriate rank of his choice to look into the complaints of the petitioner and to cause necessary enquiries, after hearing both sides. This shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` Needless to say, if the 1[st] respondent is to find any violation of law at the hands of any of the parties, all necessary action to avert it, shall be ensured without fail. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## `DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` SAS ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6134/2024` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 25.8.2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN O.S.NO.23/2023 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 12.1.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 22.1.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 22.1.2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19.1.2024 FILED BY THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2024 IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a)True Copy of the Rent Control Petition No. 1/2024 filed by the 3rd respondent before the Rent Control Court, Chengannur dated 7.2.2024 Exhibit R3(b)True copy of the plaint in O.S 254/2023 filed by the petitioner before the Chengannur Munsiff court dated 15.11.2023 Exhibit R3(c)True Copy of the complaint dated 27.12.2023, submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent Exhibit R3(d)True Copy of the I.A 4/2024 the prosecution petition, dated 9.1.2024, filed by the petitioner in O.S 23/2023, before the Sub Court, Chengannur Exhibit R3(e)True Copy of the photograph showing room No. 1151-Jai Beauty Centre and Room No 1151-Sibis Money Exchange Centre Pvt Ltd Exhibit R3(f)True Copy of the Advocate Commissioners Report, Mahazar and Sketch dated 15.1.2024 in I.A 4/2024 in O.S 23/2023 on the files of the Sub Court, Chengannur ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 6134 OF 2024` ``` Exhibit R3(g) ``` ``` True Copy of the F.I.R No.0223/2024 dated 21.2.2024, of the Chengannur Police Station ```