51 XXXII. BECAUSE, Section 69(1) of the IT Act does not contain even the bare minimum exception that is present in the proviso to section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, which provides that press messages, intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. G. SECTION 69 ARE OF THE IT ACT AND THE 2009 IT RULES DISPROPORTIONATE, VAGUE, ARBITRARY, AND SUFFER FROM THE VICE OF EXCESSIVE DELEGATION XXXIII. BECAUSE it is settled law, as noted by this Hon’ble Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, that a law can be struck down as being void for vagueness. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to other authorities for resolution on ad hoc and subjective basis’, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. The void for vagueness doctrine requires that regulated parties should know what is required of them, so that they may act accordingly, which is not the case with the Act. XXXIV. BECAUSE Section 69(1) of the IT Act permits both the Central and State governments to “intercept, monitor or decrypt” or “cause to be intercepted, monitored or decrypted” any information “generated, transmitted, received or stored” in any “computer resource” (as defined under Section 2(1)(k) of the IT Act), without providing any adequate safeguards to prevent the infraction of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, and therefore is unconstitutional.