43 XVIII. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar), despite noting that what is in the interest of national security may be a question of policy, struck down Section 33(2) of the Aadhaar Act on the ground that it did not provide for any independent (judicial) oversight of the important powers (of disclosure of identity information and authentication records of the Aadhaar number holder) given to the Joint Secretary, and did not adequately protect the interest of individuals, and was therefore, unreasonable, disproportionate, and unconstitutional. XIX. BECAUSE the “Necessary and Proportionate Principles” endorsed by this Hon’ble Court in Puttaswamy (Privacy) stipulate that in this age of rapid technological changes, legality vis-a-vis communication surveillance requires laws that restrict the right to privacy to be subject to periodic review through a consultative legislative or regulatory process. In particular, Principle 6 of these Principles, referred to above, requires that determinations related to Communications Surveillance must be made by an impartial and independent competent judicial authority. XX. BECAUSE the Srikrishna Committee specifically noted that the lack of legislative/statutory inter-branch oversight in India was “not just a gap that is deleterious in practice but, post the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy, potentially unconstitutional” since it did not satisfy the tests of Puttaswamy (Privacy) that any restriction to the right to privacy must be by law; must be necessary and proportionate; and must promote a legitimate state interest. As stated above, the Srikrishna Committee also highlighted the importance of transparency, due process, and proportionality in the