Background
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the installation and positioning of private CCTV cameras must not interfere with the privacy of neighbours.
The Court made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by Yogendra Maurya, who raised objections against the manner in which his neighbour had positioned a CCTV camera.
The petitioner complained that the camera was directed towards the entrance and exit of his house, thereby enabling the recording of persons visiting or leaving his premises. He contended that such surveillance interfered with the privacy of individuals entering and exiting his property.
Petitioner's Grievance
The petitioner's grievance concerned the direction in which the neighbouring property owner's CCTV camera had been installed. According to the petitioner, its positioning exposed the movements of visitors to his house and those leaving the premises.
He contended that such an arrangement amounted to an interference with privacy.
High Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad considered the grievance after hearing counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the State.
The Court expressed the view that private CCTV cameras cannot be installed or positioned in a manner that intrudes upon a neighbour's privacy.
The relevant observation in the judgment reads:
"In our considered view, no private CCTV camera can be installed and positioned in such a manner as to interfere with the privacy of a neighbour."
— Allahabad High Court, Yogendra Maurya v. State of U.P. and 7 Others, Writ-C No. 42270 of 2026, Paragraph 3.
The observation recognises that the use of private surveillance cameras must be subject to considerations of neighbouring residents' privacy. The manner and direction in which such cameras are positioned are therefore relevant when examining complaints of intrusive surveillance.
Direction To The District Magistrate
Despite expressing the above view, the High Court did not directly order the removal or repositioning of the CCTV camera.
Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit an application before the concerned District Magistrate.
It further directed that, if such an application was submitted, the District Magistrate must consider and decide it within one month.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with the above direction.
Case Details
Case Name: Yogendra Maurya v. State of U.P. and 7 Others
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad
Case Number: Writ-C No. 42270 of 2026
Date of Decision: 26 October 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 909
