32 incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.” Where this is for the “investigation of any offence”, the subject of a criminal investigation may, at best, gain knowledge of interception, decryption, monitoring etc. under the impugned provisions in the course of prosecution, presumably at a stage no earlier than the filing of the chargesheet. Even then, there would be little scope for redress since even if such action is illegal, the evidence gathered would remain admissible given extant principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court (E.g. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600). Therefore, with little or no possibility of individuals detecting and complaining of legal injury, it is imperative for this Hon’ble Court to test the constitutionality of the surveillance system erected by the impugned provisions along with the impugned notification, especially since its very existence, in the absence of oversight, impacts the fundamental rights of citizens in the following manner: - i. First and foremost, the very act of surveillance – taken on its own – infringes fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21. While the “harm” that surveillance causes cannot be quantified in a physical or tangible form, this Hon’ble Court has never insisted upon a showing of physical injury as a threshold requirement to demonstrate the violation of a fundamental right. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the very existence of a surveillance system impacts the right to privacy and chills the exercise of liberties under Articles 19 and 21, and prevents people from thinking about, reading and