26 an RTI request filed by “SLFC.in” in 2013, the Respondent No. 2 has stated that “on an average 7500 to 9000 orders for interception of telephones and 300 to 500 orders for interception of emails are issued by the Central Government every month.” True Copy of article titled “Surveillance – Is there a need for judicial oversight” dated 25.09.2013 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P7 (Page Nos. 120 to 124). True Copy of response issued by Respondent No. 2 on 25.05.2011 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-8 (Page No. 125). Given the large number of requests, it is highly improbable that the Competent Authority has adequate time and opportunity to make an effective assessment on alternative means of acquiring information. (c) As noted by the Justice Srikrishna Committee (page 125), the Review Committee usually convenes once every two months, and has the “unrealistic task” of reviewing more than 15,000-18,000 surveillance orders in every meeting. 27. The above statistics raise serious alarm on the institutional capacity of the Competent Authority and the Review Committees to handle, authorise, and review surveillance requests. Egregiously, the Central Government has admitted on the floor of Parliament that the “Incidents of physical/electronic surveillance in the States of Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, allegedly without authorization have been reported. Union Cabinet has approved a proposal to set up a Commission of Inquiry under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to look into these incidents.” True Copy of the Reply from Minster of State for Home Affairs dated 11.02.2014 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-9 (Page Nos. 126 to 128). However, to the best of the Petitioners’ knowledge,