23 the 2009 IT Rules, are not entirely in consonance with the binding directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in PUCL Wiretapping (supra), and are thus further inadequate. Some of the significant deviations are captured hereinbelow: GUIDELINES IN PUCL WIRETAPPING (supra) 2009 IT RULES Lawful 1. An order for telephone- Rule 3 empowers the authority tapping in terms of Section Head or the second senior 5(2) of the Act shall not be most officer of the issued except by the Home Authorised Agencies, or Secretary, Government of persons equivalent to the India (Central Government) rank of Inspector General and Home Secretaries of the of Police at State level, to State Governments. In an authorise electronic urgent case the power may be surveillance in case of delegated to an officer of the emergency. Home Department of the Government of India and the State Governments not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Purpose 9. (a) The Committee shall on As per Rule 22, the role of of Review its own, within two months of Review Committee(s) is the passing of the order by the confined to recording “its authority concerned, findings whether the investigate whether there is or directions issued under has been a relevant order rule 3 are in accordance under Section 5(2) of the Act. with provisions of subWhere there is or has been an section (2) of section 69” order, whether there has been and if not, it “may” set any contravention of the them aside. The authority provisions of Section 5(2) of to conduct an