G submitted that this violates the requirements of fairness and due process under Article 21, as well as the broader requirements of natural justice. This denial of judicial scrutiny amounts to an effective denial of remedies under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the absence of a judicial determination that surveillance meets the proportionality standards under Article 21, the lack of ability to approach the courts effectively entails the denial of the right itself. iv. Additionally, authorizing incursions into the private domain in the course of “investigation” is, traditionally, within the exclusive domain of the judiciary alone (akin to the judiciary’s power to issue warrants for search and seizure of premises), and the fact that Section 69 of the IT Act can be deployed in the investigation of criminal offences without any judicial oversight buttresses the Petitioners case that the Impugned Provisions and the Impugned Notification run contrary to the horizontal separation of powers established under the Constitution of India. In addition to absence of oversight, the Petitioners also contend that the substantive provisions of the Act and the Rules also fail the test of proportionality. Most of the grounds specified under Section 69(1) to carry out electronic surveillance are a verbatim reproduction of restrictions contained in Article 19(2). Consequently, the Executive has an unguided discretion to justify electronic surveillance. Notably, the provision also encompasses circumstances relating to “defence of India,” although such an expression is neither defined under the IT Act nor recognised under Article 19(2). Egregiously, the provision enables the State to conduct perpetual, untargeted, and mass surveillance of her citizens, under a pretext for “investigation of any offence”. Further, while secrecy may be an inherent trait, and even the paramount objective for carrying out electronic surveillance, the IT Act