33 exchanging unorthodox, controversial or provocative ideas. Regardless of whether or not a citizen knows that her email is being read by the government, the perceived danger, founded on reasonable suspicion that this may happen, itself impacts the citizen’s ability to express, receive and discuss such ideas. This was explained by Justice Subba Rao in his dissenting opinion in Kharak Singh v State of UP (supra) subsequently upheld as correct in Puttaswamy (Privacy), as follows. “In an uncivilized society where there are no inhibitions, only physical restraints may detract from personal liberty, but as civilization advances the psychological restraints are more. effective than physical ones. The scientific methods used to condition a man's mind are in a real sense physical restraints, for they engender physical (1) [1950] S.C.R.88. fear channelling one's actions through anticipated and expected groves. So also the creation of conditions which necessarily engender complexes can be inhibitions described and as fear physical restraints. Further, the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movements, but also free from encroachments on his private life.” ii. Second, in the absence of parliamentary or judicial oversight, electronic surveillance gives the Executive the power to influence both the subject of surveillance and all classes of individuals, which is particularly dangerous since the provision is agnostic with respect to the subject of surveillance. In other words, constitutional functionaries may be the subject