6 3. At the outset, the Petitioners submit that the electronic surveillance regime is thoroughly incompatible with the spirit of directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301 (“Wiretapping Judgment”), in the context of rampant and illegal tapping of telephonic conversations under the Telegraph Act, 1885. In any event, the rapid growth of ICT and dangers it poses to civil rights, the safeguards guaranteed under the Wiretapping Judgment (supra) require to strengthened, or perhaps, reconsidered. Pertinently, the decisions of this Hon’ble Court in Puttaswamy (Privacy) and Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) have enumerated the evolving boundaries and safeguards necessary against violation of individual liberties and freedoms in the digital age. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in Puttaswamy (Privacy) (concurring) aptly underscored the concerns of surveillance in the following words: “585. The growth and development of technology has created new instruments for the possible invasion of privacy by the State, including through surveillance, profiling and data collection and processing. Surveillance is not new, but technology has permitted surveillance in ways that are unimaginable. Edward Snowden shocked the world with his disclosures about global surveillance. States are utilising technology in the most imaginative ways particularly in view of increasing global terrorist attacks and heightened public safety concerns. One such technique being adopted by the States is “profiling”. …” 4. To this end, the present Writ Petition raises several important questions of law involving interpretation of the Constitution. In particular, this Hon’ble Court has to examine: