F power in the hands of the executive under the Impugned Provisions and Impugned Notification would violate the requirement of having adequate procedural safeguards, as mandated in Puttaswamy (Privacy). Therefore, oversight by another branch of government would be the minimum requirement for surveillance provisions to pass muster. ii. Specifically, based on the rulings in Puttaswamy (Privacy) and Puttaswamy (Aadhaar), judicial oversight would be the minimum requirement for this system to pass constitutional muster, as the judiciary alone is competent to decide whether specific instances of surveillance are proportionate, especially to decide whether less onerous alternatives are available and in balancing the importance of the government objective with the rights of the individual / individuals impacted. It is obvious that a Court, alone, is competent to decide the constitutionality of individual instances of surveillance and test it on the proportionality standard. Nothing in the Court rulings in Puttaswamy (Privacy) and Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) suggests that a finding on proportionality can be returned by an executive authority. iii. However, the requirement of judicial oversight goes beyond the issue of institutional competence. It is also an minimum requirement in order to satisfy the requirement of “due process”. By design, surveillance - which operates in secret - curtails the operation of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, as a person who suspects that she is under surveillance, in many cases will have no way of proving it, and cannot therefore establish a breach in accordance with Articles 32 and 226, until that information is revealed. The effective exclusion of Articles 32 and 226 therefore entails that, for all practical purposes, the decision of the Executive on whether fundamental rights have been validly and reasonably infringed, is final. It is respectfully