CCTV in Delhi Schools Petition

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.
com)
SYNOPSIS
The Petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ in the nature of
Mandamus to quash and set aside the decision dated
11.09.2017 of installation of CCTV Cameras in Classrooms and
decision dated 11.12.2017 of providing live feed to parents
from cameras installed in schools administered by Government
of NCT of Delhi, Respondent No. 1.
The impugned decision is in direct contravention of the
Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) &
Anr. v. Union of India, [2017 (10) SCC 1], which has
unequivocally upheld Right to Privacy as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said Judgment
has clearly upheld an individual’s right to privacy even in public
spaces.
Further in the case of Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association
and Anr v. State of Maharashtra, (W.P. (Civil) No. 576 of 2016)
installation of CCTVs has been held as violative of Right to
Privacy.
The said installation of CCTV cameras and providing live feed of
the same to anyone with a user id and password jeopardizes

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
2
the safety and security of young girls as also the female
teachers and shall directly give rise to the incidents of stalking
and voyeurism.
Also, there are no measures taken for protection of the data
that is required to be stored in the aforesaid CCTV recordings.
This data is prone to being hacked and poses a serious threat
to the privacy and security of the children as well as the
teachers.
Furthermore, there are financial irregularities in the process of
procurement of the said CCTV Cameras which have been raised
by the Respondent No. 3 themselves.
The present decision by the Respondent is wholly violative of
the rights of privacy contained in Article 21 of the Constitution,
and particularly the rights, as enunciated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, pursuant to the judgment in KS Puttaswamy v.
Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Hence, the instant Writ Petition in public interest.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
11.09.2017 Emergency Meeting was convened by the

3
Minister of Education purportedly on the
ground of ‘incident of child abuse in the
schools of Delhi/NCR’, wherein it was
decided that installation of CCTV cameras
in all the schools of Delhi – run by
Respondent No. 1, local bodies or
aided/recognized by them will be
mandatory.
The said decision was taken without
undertaking any research/study into the
ramifications of such installations, without
consideration of the provision of data
security as also the psychological impact
of the said installations on young children.
11.12.2017 A meeting under the chairmanship of the
Chief Minister of Respondent No. 1 was
convened wherein it was directed that
online access to parents be provided to be
able to see their child’s classroom.
Concerns were raised by the Respondent
No. 2 themselves regarding the privacy of
other students and autonomy of teachers,
however, shockingly the same were
overruled by the Chief Minister of

4
Respondent No. 1.
05.04.2018 The Expenditure Finance Committee under
the Chairmanship of the Respondent vide
the 1st minutes of meeting approved the
proposal for Supply, Installation,
Commissioning and Testing of CCTV
cameras to be installed within classrooms
as well as open areas of 1028 Government
run Schools.
17.05.2018 The factum of the meeting, along with the
consequent actions, which had been taken
by the Respondents had been widely
reported in national media, on such article
being reported on 17.05.2018.
02.07.2018 A Petition, Daniel George v. Government
of NCT of Delhi, [Writ Petition (Civil) No.
7083 of 2018] was filed before the Delhi
High Court for setting aside the proposal
of the installation of CCTVs in Government
of NCT of Delhi Schools, conducting a
feasibility test to understand the issues
faced by teachers and students for

5
constant surveillance, framing guidelines
for effective regulation of CCTV footage
keeping in mind the directions contained
in the KS Puttaswamy Judgment.
12.07.2018 The Petitioner came across a newspaper
article with details of the said proposal of
the Delhi Government. The Petitioner was
highly concerned with the abrogation of
the fundamental rights caused as a result
of this policy.
20.08.2018 The Petitioner filed an Intervention
Application before the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in W.P. No. 7083 of 2018 to raise
the several negative implications of the
proposal to install CCTV cameras in
classrooms in Government schools across
Delhi.
13.09.2018 The intervention application of the
Petitioner herein was dismissed vide the
order dated 13.09.2018.
13.09.2018 – No action has been taken by the Delhi

6
02.04.2019 High Court in this matter.
03.04.2019 Hence, the present Writ Petition in public
interest.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. ______ OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Amber Tickoo
D/o Shri Rakesh Tickoo
R/ o 3rd floor, 1/52, Nirankari Colony
Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi 110009 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Old DelhiSecretariat,
Vikas Sadan
ITO, New Delhi -110002 …Respondent No. 1
Department of Education,
Through its Secretary,

7
Old Secretariat, Near Vidhan Sabha,
Civil Lines, New Delhi -110054 …Respondent No. 2
Public Works Department,
Through its Chief Secretary,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi – 110002 ...Respondent No. 3
A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING DIRECTIONS IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT SEEKING TO QUASH AND SET
ASIDE GOVERNMENT DECISION OF INSTALLATION OF
CCTV CAMERAS
To,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA AND HIS COMPANION
HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That this Writ Petition is being filed in Public Interest
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus to quash and set aside

8
the decision of installation of CCTV Cameras in
Classrooms and of providing live feed to parents from
cameras installed in schools administered by Respondent
No. 1. The decision of installation of CCTV Cameras was
taken in a meeting of the Directorate of Education dated
11.07.2017 which has been recorded in the Minutes of
the Meeting No. F 1/678/CTB/School Safety. 2017-18/692
dated 13.09.2017 and further the Cabinet Note No. F.
1/702/CTB/CCTV/Cabinet Note/2017-2018 records the
decision of the Respondent No. 1 of providing the feed to
parents from cameras installed in classrooms. True Copy
of the Minutes of the Meeting No. F 1/678/CTB/School
Safety. 2017-18/692 dated 13.09.2017 is annexed
herewith as Annexure P/__ (page___ to ___) and the
True Copy of the Cabinet Note No. F.
1/702/CTB/CCTV/Cabinet Note/2017-2018 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P/__ (page___ to ___)
2. The Petitioner submits that the impugned decision is in
direct contravention of the Judgment of this Hon’ble
Court in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of
India, [2017 (10) SCC 1], which has unequivocally upheld
Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. The said Judgment has
clearly upheld an individual’s right to privacy even in

9
public spaces. At Para 403, the said Judgment clearly
states that, “Every individual is entitled to perform his
actions in private. In other words, she is entitled to be in
a state of repose and to work without being disturbed, or
otherwise observed or spied upon.” Further in the case
of Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association and Anr v.
State of Maharashtra, (W.P. (Civil) No. 576 of 2016)
installation of CCTVs has been held as violative of Right
to Privacy. It is also pertinent to point out that the said
installation of CCTV cameras and providing live feed of
the same to anyone with a user id and password
jeopardizes the safety and security of young girls as also
the female teachers and shall directly give rise to the
incidents of stalking and voyeurism. Also, there are no
measures taken for protection of the data that is required
to be stored in the aforesaid CCTV recordings.
Furthermore, the Petitioner would also like to point out
that there are financial irregularities in the process of
procurement of the said CCTV Cameras which have been
raised by the Respondent No. 3 themselves.
3. That the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court, Ms. Amber
Tickoo, age 20 years, is a law student presently studying
in her third year at National Law University, Delhi. She
passed her board exams in 2016 with 96% and also
cleared two law entrance exams in the same year, CLAT

10
and AILET through which she secured a seat at National
Law University, Delhi. Currently, she holds batch rank 13
in her law school. The Petitioner completed her schooling
from Presentation Convent Sr. Secondary School, Delhi
wherein she was specially sensitized about feminist issues
and concerns of safety of women. The Petitioner was
particularly vocal about rights of women and the
everyday struggles that they go through. The same
manifested in the form of her membership in the Gender
Circle of law school where she has been at the forefront
of gender issues and fervently voiced her opinions against
patriarchal institutions of society. She has also been part
of ‘Editathon projects’ wherein she has written and edited
Wikipedia pages on rights of rape victims.
True Copy of the College ID Card of the Petitioner dated
NIL is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-2
(Pg. _____ to Pg. ______).
True Copy of the Aadhar Card of the Petitioner dated NIL
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 (Pg.
______ to Pg. ______).
True Copy of the Curriculum Vitae of the Petitioner dated
NIL is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4
(Pg. _____ to Pg. _______).
4. The Petitioner is filing this Petition under Article 32 strictly
in the public interest and has absolutely no personal or

11
pecuniary interest in the matter. This Petition is being
filed solely in the interest of safety and protecting the
privacy of young children, especially of young girls and
women who are entitled to live a life of dignity and
privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Petitioner is filing the present petition on her own
and not at the instance of someone else. The litigation
cost, including the advocate’s fee are being borne by the
Petitioner herself.
6. That the impugned decision of installation of CCTV
Cameras in school was taken in an emergency meeting
convened on 11.09.2017 by the Minister of Education
purportedly on the ground of ‘incident of child abuse in
the schools of Delhi/NCR’, wherein it was decided that
installation of CCTV cameras in all the schools of Delhi –
run by Respondent No. 1, local bodies or
aided/recognized by them will be mandatory. It is
pertinent to note that the said decision was taken without
undertaking any research/study into the ramifications of
such installations, without consideration of the provision
of data security as also the psychological impact of the
said installations on young children. Further, no consent
of the parents, or the teachers was considered before
taking the impugned decision.

12
7. Further, vide meeting dated 11.12.2017 under the
chairpersonship of the Chief Minister of Respondent No.
1, it was directed that online access to parents be
provided to be able to see their child’s classroom. It is
pertinent to note that concerns were raised by the
Respondent No. 2 themselves regarding the privacy of
other students and autonomy of teachers, however,
shockingly the same were overruled by the Chief Minister
of Respondent No. 1 purportedly in the interest of
accountability to parents and discipline in classrooms.
8. It is stated that the Petitioner received knowledge of the
impugned decision of the Respondent No. 1 from the
newspapers.
True Copy of the newspaper article dated 12.07.2018 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P- 5 (Pg.
____ to Pg. ______).
9. The Petitioner states that the she does not have any
other equally efficacious alternative remedy except
approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of the present Writ
Petition in Public Interest.
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY

13
10. The Petitioner states that the impugned decision is
absolutely violative of right to privacy conferred under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is a clear
violation of the right to privacy of the students including
young girls as also the teachers by subjecting them to
constant surveillance. It is submitted that this Hon’ble
Court in the Puttuswamy Judgment has clearly held
that,
“Every individual is entitled to perform his actions in
private. In other words, she is entitled to be in a
state of repose and to work without being
disturbed, or otherwise observed or spied upon.
The entitlement to such a condition is not confined
only to intimate spaces such as the bedroom or the
washroom but goes with a person wherever he is,
even in a public place. Privacy has a deep affinity
with seclusion (of our physical persons and things)
as well as such ideas as repose, solitude,
confidentiality and secrecy (in our communications),
and intimacy. But this is not to suggest that solitude
is always essential to privacy. It is in this sense of
an individual’s liberty to do things privately that a
group of individuals, however large, is entitled to
seclude itself from others and be private.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14
11. Further, there is a hugely disconcerting effect that
constant surveillance has on teachers and students in a
classroom. It is pertinent to note that Puttuswamy at
Para 412 has held that, “Freedom of speech and
expression is always dependent on the capacity to think,
read and write in private and is often exercised in a state
of privacy, to the exclusion of those not intended to be
spoken to or communicated with.” Being subjected to
constant surveillance will be a great violation of the
freedom of speech and expression of the teachers as well
as the students. It is stated that intra-student interactions
in a classroom are such which do not call for gaze of
community upon them. The impugned decision can
significantly affect the way in which inter-gender
interactions occur. In schools which impart co-education,
interactions with students from the opposite gender will
substantially reduce as many students coming from
conservative families will fear rebuke from parents for
talking to children from the opposite sex. Female students
with male friends will face the risk of being shamed by
the community at a young age as parents from
patriarchal, conservative backgrounds hold such
interactions as taboo. There is a possibility of parents
insisting their children to interact with a particular set of
students only and maintain a distance from the rest

15
because of class, caste or religious reasons, something
that can potentially lead to Dalit exclusion in classroom
dynamics or expand class hierarchies. The nature of
learning itself is such that people allow themselves to
experiment with their own personality and the pedagogy
invites all participants into a transformational relationship
with self, others and the curriculum. Therefore, CCTVs
shall have a chilling effect on the growth and
development of children.
12. At this stage, it becomes relevant to draw an
analogy with Foucault’s social analysis through Bentham’s
Panoptican prison design. Foucault said that this
architectural design was symbolic of how the Panoptican
was invested with power while the inmates were exposed
as “an object of information, never a subject in
communication.” The Panoptican model has been used to
show how uncertainty can be used as a means of social
control. Bentham’s model represents the idea of
omnipresent gaze, which is exactly what the impugned
decision stands for. The panoptic power of CCTV lies in
the ambiguity and uncertainty of whether or not the child
is being watched which has the effect of self-policing.
Every action that a student undertakes will be oriented
towards projecting a certain image to parents and the
larger community who has access to the footage.

16
Puttaswamy at Para 509 notes the need to protect
individuals from such scrutiny, by citing Gobind v. state of
M.P. [(1975) 2 SCC 148], wherein it said, “individuals
need a sanctuary where they can be free from societal
control. The importance of such a sanctuary is that
individuals can drop the mask, desist for a while from
projecting on the world the image they want to be
accepted as themselves, an image that may reflect the
values of their peers rather than the realities of their
natures.” Sanctuary of a classroom is one, which needs
such protection. Essential to an environment of learning
should be that students do not feel weighed down by
parental pressure and expectations. Puttaswamy at
Para 403 helps carve out a collective right of children to
learn in privacy, where the panoptic gaze does not lead
them to self-police their behaviour, “The disconcerting
effect of having another peer over one’s shoulder while
reading or writing explains why individuals would choose
to retain their privacy even in public.”
ADVERSE IMPACT OF VIOLATION OF PRIVACY ON
YOUNG GIRLS
13. It is further stated that constant CCTV surveillance
subjects the individuals to a gaze of people they do not
want to be watched or observed by. It is specifically
intrusive for young girls and subjects them to a unique

17
harm. An example of how such invasive culture would
violate dignity would be when women go through their
menstrual cycles. Women of that age are usually unsure
of how they are expected to handle their reproductive
health. It is natural to be baffled at the sudden changes
the body goes through and balance that with the unique
social pressure that is placed on women. Menstrual health
and hygiene concerns are pivotal to the way women
conduct themselves at the time of their cycle especially. It
is preposterous to have those private actions subjected to
scrutiny of the community and amounts to gross violation
of the right to dignity of the children as well as the female
teachers.
NO PROVISION FOR DATA PROTECTION
14. It remains unclear as to which Department of the
Respondent No. 1 would be entrusted with the task of
data collection and storage of the video content
generated from the feed. It further remains unclear what
are the policies in place that prevent the data generated
from being misused either by the School or the state or
any third party with access to it. It is clear from the
reading of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 which
defines personal data that the state will be collecting and
processing enormous sensitive and personal data of the

18
children and teachers in the classrooms. In the absence
of an adequate infrastructure, policy and regulatory
mechanism in place, the impugned policy will be in
contravention of Puttaswamy, where this Court
considered the fact that modern technology allows
permanent storage of information of a person and his/her
behaviour and specifically held that there is a special
need to protect children from the same,
“Privacy of children will require special protection not in
context of the virtual world, but also the real world.”
15. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Expert Committee
Report on protection of children’s personal data states
that the personal data of children is to be accorded
greater protection than regular processing of data. The
Expert Committee Report expressly lays down the legal
obligation on all data fiduciaries to process data relating
to children in their best interest. Further, Section 23 of
The Personal Data Protection Bill also has the same
requirement. Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, 1989, to which India is a signatory, states
that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his or her privacy, family home or
correspondence, or to unlawful attacks on his or her
honour and reputation.” The sub clause (2) of Article 16
further stipulates that “the child has the right to the

19
protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.” Video generated data can be misused in a
myriad of ways and the video feed of children in
classrooms stands even more at the risk of being misused
in the garb of anonymity offered by the internet.
The Respondents have not offered any solution to this
problem of data protection which if falls into the wrong
hands can have dire consequences.
VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION
16. The surveillance on teachers and children will have
a chilling effect on the speech and expression of the
individuals inside the classroom, thereby violating Article
19(1)(a). This Hon’ble Court in the case of Ministry of
Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket
Association of Bengal, [(1995) 2 SCC 161] has held that the
right to freedom of speech and expression also includes
the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also
the right to be educated, informed and entertained. This
was upheld by a constitution bench in State of Karnataka
v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary &
Secondary Schools, [(2014) 9 SCC 485]. Further,
Puttaswamy states,
20
“Privacy in all its aspects constitutes the
springboard for the exercise of the freedoms
guaranteed by Article 19(1). Freedom of speech and
expression is always dependent on the capacity to
think, read and write in private and is often
exercised in a state of privacy, to the exclusion of
those not intended to be spoken to or
communicated with.”
17. Students and teachers both will not be able to
express themselves freely in a classroom where
everything is closely and continually monitored. The
expression of learning is strongly embedded in their
fundamental right to speech and expression. Cognitive
freedom is essential for the exercise of expressive
freedom. Classrooms are spaces of learning where
children should be able to express their ambitions,
ideologies and opinions freely without fear of constantly
being watched. Irrespective of whether the cameras
permit voice recording or not, there is a deprivation of the
right under Article 19(1)(a). As held by this court in PUCL
v. Union of India, [(2003) 4 SCC 399] freedom of
expression which overlaps with freedom of speech is not
confined to expressing something orally or in writing, it
includes manifestation of any emotion. Visual recording
permits one to monitor speech and expression as

21
understood under Article 19(1)(a). An example could be
when parents expect their children to participate vocally
in class and children who do not do so will be compelled
to be outspoken in class. The teaching tools of teacher on
display, like blackboard notes or power point
presentations etc. will be captured by the cameras.
Classroom forms of speech are intrinsically linked to other
forms of expression which can attack freedom to speak
even in the absence of voice recording technology. Some
examples to illustrate this would be:
a) A lecture being given to students on sex education and
a diagram on board which easily shows what the topic
of discussion in class is, students shy of asking
questions in the knowledge of being watched will stifle
their speech. There is a great amount of sensitivity
with which students require to be acquainted with
issues of reproductive health. Conversations and
discussions that revolve around these issues leave a
very poignant impact on the development of teenage
minds. Unfortunately, there is a marked reluctance in
our society to address these issues. It is absolutely
important that such conversations take place openly
among students and teachers without fear of being
observed by the community at large. The knowledge
of being watched can compound the stigma revolving

22
around this and potentially jeopardise the chances of
honest and inquisitive conversations from taking place.
b) A teacher while dealing with politically or historically
sensitive issues may try to avoid class discussion so as
to avoid being attacked for inciting passions of
students or ‘brainwashing’ them.
18. Further, this policy of the state cannot be protected
by Article 19(2) because the constitution bench in the
case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295,
(Para 16) held that merely executive or departmental
instructions would not be ‘a law’ which the state is
entitled to make under the relevant clauses (2) to (6) of
Article 19 in order to regulate or curtail fundamental
rights guaranteed by the several sub-clauses of Article
19(1). This was further upheld by this Court in the case of
Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.,
[(1986) 3 SCC 615].
FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES IN PROCURMENT OF CCTVs
19. It is further stated that there have been major
financial irregularities in the manner of approval of the
CCTVs. That, the File Notings on the subject of “Supply,
Installation, Testing and Commissioning” (SITC) of CCTV

23
System throughout Delhi whereby the Minister of
Respondent No. 3 has accorded approval for the
procurement of CCTV cameras to be installed inside
classrooms of schools of the Delhi Government. At page
132/N internal page number, the Principal Secretary of
Respondent No. 3 in his Note dated 09.07.2018 at
specifically states that:
“…480. The specifications of CCTV appear hasty.
It is possible to go for less rigid specifications, so
that CCTV may cost less. If Govt. is happy with
NDMC-installed CCTV, same specifications could
have been copied. CS has rightly said that it
needs discussion with RWAs and a re-think;
483. The floating of tender before Administrative
Approval and Expenditure Sanction is a serious
irregularity. I propose re-tendering rather than
ex-post facto sanction to a Rs. 571 crores
tender…”.
From the above it is quite clear that the senior-most
bureaucrat of the Respondent Government has himself
raised grave concerns regarding the decision to go for
“rigid specifications” as the same would have a serious
cost implication on the tax payers. The Principal Secretary
also states that the floating of a tender before
Administrative Approval (A/A) and Expenditure Sanction
(E/S) is a “serious irregularity” and on that basis suggests

24
re-tendering rather than ex-post facto sanction to a Rs.
571 Crores Tender. That shockingly at the Principal
Secretary also requested the Chief Secretary to request
the Chief Minister to reconsider the Cabinet Decision of
giving the work to the PWD.
True Copy of the Cabinet Decision bearing CD No.
057405162 herewith and marked as Annexure-6 (Pg.
____ to Pg. ____).
20. That, the Principal Secretary’s observations raise
extremely grave doubts in the manner in which this
Project has been proposed and tendered and must
therefore be subject to an investigation and judicial
scrutiny.
21. That, further, in Cabinet Decision No.
F.1/702/CTB/CCTV/Cabinet Note/2017-18, on the subject
“Installation of CCTV Cameras in Government Schools
under Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi” prepared
by Principal Secretary Education Shri. Sandeep Kumar
dated 11.09.2017, the meeting of the Expenditure
Finance Committee (EFC) dated 15.05.2018 is
extrapolated. It is stated that the Committee observed
“that even before the Project was approved by the
competent Authority, RFP was floated and tender was
finalised by PWD. This should normally not happen.”

25
Further, under the Head “Clarifications of PWD on
observation of DoE” it is reiterated that the PWD had
invited RFP without A/A and E/S. The Note further goes
on to state, most disturbingly, that the initial stage the
estimated cost of Rs. 290 crores as indicated by PWD was
suddenly increased to Rs. 358 crores “the reason for this
sudden increase of 23.44 % needs to be clarified.”
22. That it is also recorded that the PWD’s concerns
were more serious as the RFP was issued without taking
A/A & E/S and without any technical sanction and further
PWD did not carry out any survey over 700 school
buildings to prepare estimates before issuing of RFP.
That, it is stated that the eligibility criteria in the RFP had
been “drastically revised downwards”. This was stated to
be done under the approval of the Competent Authority.
23. That, the said Note also record a protest of the
Government School Teacher’s Association, Delhi in the
form of two letters dated 21.05.2018 and 12.05.2018,
specifically highlighting that the privacy and dignity of
adolescent girl students and lady teachers will be breach
and security of both shall be affected.
24. The instant Petition has been filed purely for bona
fide reasons and the Petitioner has come with clean

26
hands and has no pecuniary/extraneous interest
whatsoever in its outcome. The Petitioner has no personal
gain, private motive or oblique reasons in filing the
instant Writ Petition which is purely in public interest.
25. It is stated that the Petitioner is a law-abiding
citizen and there is no past civil, criminal, or revenue
litigation, involving the Petitioner, which has or any legal
nexus with the issue(s) involved in the instant Writ
Petition filed in Public Interest.
26. The Petitioner states that a Writ Petition being,
W.P. (Civil) No. 7083 of 2018 [Daniel George v.
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi] is
pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on the
impugned decision. The Petitioner filed an application for
intervention in the aforesaid Petition which was dismissed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Order dated
13.09.2018.
True Copy of the Application for Intervention CM No.
37515 of 2018 of the Petitioner herein dated _____ is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-7 (Pg.
_____ to Pg. ______).
True Copy of the Order dated 13.09.2018 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-8 (Pg. _____ to Pg. _____).

27
27. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has made a
representation to the concerned Government Authorities
in this regard, however, no reply has been forthcoming
from the Respondents till date.
True Copy of the Representation dated _________ made
by the Petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-9 (Pg. _____ to Pg. ______).
QUESTIONS OF LAW
The following questions of law arise for consideration by this
Hon’ble Court –
A. Whether installation of CCTV inside classrooms is
violative of the right to privacy and hence of the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article
21 in light of the judgment in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of
India and Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association and
Anr v. State of Maharashtra, (W.P. (Civil) No. 576 of
2016)?
B. Whether the decision of the Respondent No. 1
which includes providing access of live-streaming to the
parents, is unconstitutional in light of the judgment of this
Hon’bke Court in KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India?

28
GROUNDS
a) BECAUSE the aforesaid decision is also directly violative of
the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Indian Hotel and
Restaurant Association and Anr v. State of Maharashtra,
(W.P. (Civil) No. 576 of 2016), wherein it has been held
that installation of CCTV Cameras is violative of right to
privacy.
a) BECAUSE the right to privacy inheres in individuals even
inside a classroom by virtue of this Hon’ble Court’s
decision in Puttaswamy, wherein, it has held at para
323,“While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary
from intimate zone to the private zone to the public
arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not
just lost or surrendered merely because the individual is
in a public place."
b) BECAUSE Puttaswamy, at Para 185 has cited with
approval, the Katz test formulated in the landmark Katz v.
United States (laying the doctrine of legitimate
expectation of privacy) does not simply apply to places
but to persons. There is a legitimate expectation of
privacy over choices that are integral to human
personality and a classroom is where people make those

29
fundamental choices, which in turn develops their
personality.
c) BECAUSE such surveillance also violates the dignity of the
individuals. Puttaswamy at Para 127 holds, “The
sanctity of privacy lies in its functional relationship with
dignity.” The impugned decision by way of infringement
of privacy will also violate dignity of students and
teachers.
d) BECAUSE the said decision fails to demonstrate that the
restriction on the right to privacy satisfies the three-part
test, as laid down in Puttuswamy and Aadhar. The
state action must be (i) sanctioned by law, (ii) necessary
in a democratic society for a legitimate aim, and (iii) the
interference must be proportionate to the aim being
sought.
e) BECAUSE, impugned decision does not satisfy the test of
necessity and proportionality. This Hon'ble Court in
Aadhar ruled that "The Act passes the muster of
necessity stage as well when we do not find any less
restrictive measure which could be equally effective in
achieving the aim". In the current case, State has not
showcased that installation of cameras in school is the
only least restrictive way to achieve the aim being sought.

30
f) BECAUSE this decision violates the Right to Education
under Article 21A of female students. It is an integral
requirement under Article 21A that a safe and
comfortable environment is provided to young girls for
their education. Constant surveillance by unknown people
can make young girls prey to incidents like stalking,
sexual harassment, which will be a hurdle to their
education in addition to having a negative impact on their
psychological health.
g) BECAUSE such surveillance also violates the dignity of the
individuals. Puttaswamy holds, “The sanctity of privacy
lies in its functional relationship with dignity.” The
impugned decision by way of infringement of privacy will
also violate dignity of students and teachers. Constant
CCTV surveillance subjects the individuals to a gaze of
people they do not want to be watched or observed by. It
is specifically intrusive for women and subjects them to a
unique harm.
h) BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in Puttaswamy has held
that, “Thoughts and behavioural patterns which are
intimate to an individual are entitled to a zone of privacy
where one is free of social expectations. In that zone of
privacy, an individual is not judged by others…It enables

31
individuals to preserve their beliefs, thoughts,
expressions, ideas, ideologies, preferences and choices
against societal demands of homogeneity”. It is very
important that young impressionable minds of children
have the privacy and free environment that is essential
for them to develop their independent thought-process
and opinion.
PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to-
A. Set aside the decision of the Respondent No. 1 in the meeting
dated 11.09.2017 of installation of closed-circuit television
(CCTV) cameras in Government of NCT of Delhi Schools and
the decision dated 11.12.2017 of providing online access to
parents of the CCTV footage.
B. Grant any further orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN
DUTYBOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
32
MANISHA AMBWANI
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Scanned by CamScanner

CCTV in Delhi Schools Petition

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CCTV in Delhi Schools Petition

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.

The Petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition under Article 32

of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ in the nature of

Mandamus to quash and set aside the decision dated

11.09.2017 of installation of CCTV Cameras in Classrooms and

decision dated 11.12.2017 of providing live feed to parents

from cameras installed in schools administered by Government

of NCT of Delhi, Respondent No. 1.

The impugned decision is in direct contravention of the

Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) &

Anr. v. Union of India, [2017 (10) SCC 1], which has

unequivocally upheld Right to Privacy as a fundamental right

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said Judgment

has clearly upheld an individual’s right to privacy even in public

Further in the case of Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association

and Anr v. State of Maharashtra, (W.P. (Civil) No. 576 of 2016)

installation of CCTVs has been held as violative of Right to

The said installation of CCTV cameras and providing live feed of

the same to anyone with a user id and password jeopardizes

teachers and shall directly give rise to the incidents of stalking

Also, there are no measures taken for protection of the data

that is required to be stored in the aforesaid CCTV recordings.

This data is prone to being hacked and poses a serious threat

to the privacy and security of the children as well as the

Furthermore, there are financial irregularities in the process of

procurement of the said CCTV Cameras which have been raised

by the Respondent No. 3 themselves.

The present decision by the Respondent is wholly violative of

the rights of privacy contained in Article 21 of the Constitution,

and particularly the rights, as enunciated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, pursuant to the judgment in KS Puttaswamy v.

Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Hence, the instant Writ Petition in public interest.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

11.09.2017 Emergency Meeting was convened by the

ground of ‘incident of child abuse in the

schools of Delhi/NCR’, wherein it was

decided that installation of CCTV cameras

in all the schools of Delhi – run by

Respondent No. 1, local bodies or

aided/recognized by them will be

The said decision was taken without

undertaking any research/study into the

ramifications of such installations, without

consideration of the provision of data

security as also the psychological impact

of the said installations on young children.

11.12.2017 A meeting under the chairmanship of the

Chief Minister of Respondent No. 1 was

convened wherein it was directed that

online access to parents be provided to be

able to see their child’s classroom.

Concerns were raised by the Respondent

No. 2 themselves regarding the privacy of

other students and autonomy of teachers,

however, shockingly the same were

overruled by the Chief Minister of

05.04.2018 The Expenditure Finance Committee under

the Chairmanship of the Respondent vide

the 1st minutes of meeting approved the

proposal for Supply, Installation,

Commissioning and Testing of CCTV

cameras to be installed within classrooms