54 is now well settled that any infringement on the right to privacy has to be authorised by law. However, although the surveillance requires are sanctioned under the IT Act, the agencies that have been notified to carry them out are not authorised by law. Thus, to the extent that the impugned Notification authorises these agencies, it is further unconstitutional. XL. BECAUSE section 69(1) of the IT Act requires that a direction can only be passed by the Central or State Government of “any of its officers” specially authorised by the Central or the State Government. However, Rule 4 of the 2009 IT Rules as well as the impugned Notification envisage action by entire “agenc(ies) of the government”, which is ultra vires section 69(1). Thus, in extending the powers of interception, monitoring, and decryption to “agencies”, beyond the remit of “authorised officers” mentioned in Section 69(1), the 2009 IT Rules and the Impugned Notification are unconstitutional. 36. The Respondents are ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 37. The Petitioners have not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Court or in any High Court or this Hon’ble Court for similar reliefs. 38. The Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to add, alter or amend all or any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the present Petition. 39. The Petitioners submits that there is no other equal or efficacious alternative remedy available to them.