JUDGMENT : 1. In these bunch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge the directions issued by the Director of Public Instructions as well as the Director of Higher Secondary School to remove CCTV cameras installed in the classrooms. The petitioners are Managers of recognised/aided schools in the State. 2. The problem presented in these Writ Petitions calls for a decision as to how to balance competing rights involved in a relationship. The stand of the school authority is that such installation of CCTV cameras are indispensable to monitor the class and also to protect the students. Safety and security angle are projected to justify installation of cameras. It is also urged that in order to maintain discipline it is essential to have CCTV cameras in the classrooms. This Court, in fact, by an interim order in all these Writ Petitions directed the petitioners to remove the cameras installed in the toilets as it would have a direct impact on the privacy of the users of such toilets. This Court find no reason to vary that interim order. Therefore, that interim order is made absolute. 3. It appears that several complaints have been raised, as against installation of cameras, by the parents and teachers. The stand of the official respondents is that installation of CCTV cameras in the classrooms amount to harassment and would invade into the privacy of teachers as well as students. It appears that a complaint was also lodged before the State Human Rights Commission. The complaint was forwarded to the Director of Public Instructions to submit a report. Complaints also have been lodged by some of the students alleging that installation of CCTV cameras in classrooms negate complete freedom available to them. 4. Right of the management to take such measures to protect safety and security of the students cannot be questioned. At the same time, the right of the students to protect themselves from the constant surveillance of the cameras also cannot be ignored. Safety, security and privacy will have to be balanced. In a particular relationship when there are competing rights overlapping each other, the foremost question that would arise for consideration is whether public officials, who are only discharging statutory and administrative functions are competent to pass such orders in the absence of any specific provisions in that regard in the statute. 5. In a particular relationship when there are competing rights overlapping each other, the foremost question that would arise for consideration is whether public officials, who are only discharging statutory and administrative functions are competent to pass such orders in the absence of any specific provisions in that regard in the statute. 5. The regulation as such now sought to be enforced in regard to installation of CCTV cameras would have direct infringement on the right of the Management to manage and administer the schools. The regulatory powers of administrative and regulatory authorities in regard to management must be traceable to legislation or executive decision. Regulatory intervention would be required if such regulation is designed to serve the object of the regulations. The Director of Public Instructions and the Director of Higher Secondary Education cannot assume themselves as a Regulator, unless they derive such power to regulate, within the ambit of the power given to them. 6. The essential legislative power includes the power to regulate the behaviour of individuals or the right of individuals. This essential legislative power, normally, cannot be delegated. The power now exercised by the Director of Public Instructions as well as the Director of Higher Secondary Education is in the nature of legislative function in a sense that the impact of exercise of such power would restrict the right of management of the school. Therefore, in the absence of any delegated legislation, the officials as above could not have exercised the power to regulate installation of CCTV. The installation of CCTV cameras cannot be viewed in isolation of the object for which it was installed. Security and safety are the concern. If the order of removal can be justified on the ground of privacy, installation also can be justified on the ground of safety and security. Thus, this delicate balancing of rights will have to be resolved through the legislative mandates or executive decision. It is for the State or the Government to decide the same. It appears that the officials have ignored the purport and object of installation of CCTV cameras. This Court cannot balance such competing rights without the same being considered by the State. No doubt, the individual concerned, who is aggrieved by the installation, still has the constitutional remedy. It is for the State or the Government to decide the same. It appears that the officials have ignored the purport and object of installation of CCTV cameras. This Court cannot balance such competing rights without the same being considered by the State. No doubt, the individual concerned, who is aggrieved by the installation, still has the constitutional remedy. This Court is only pointing out that such a balancing exercise will have to be done by the State or by this Court when the aggrieved approach. 7. Installation as such now being not contrary to any of the statutory provisions, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, I do so. Thus, the Writ Petitions are disposed setting aside the impugned orders. Liberty is given to the State to come out with suitable regulations. No costs.