34 matter of electronic surveillance under the impugned provision, without any checks outside the executive wing of government. The very existence of such disproportionate power vesting with one wing of government would violate not only Part III of the Constitution, which impacts the vertical relationship between the citizen and the State; but would also impact the horizontal separation of power between the executive, legislature and judiciary. 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 it is proportionate and whether less onerous alternatives are available. II. BECAUSE for the reasons elaborated below – i.e. the overbroad and vague nature of Section 69; the lack of any adequate safeguards; the impossibility of ensuring substantive due process, while deciding whether the decision to intercept, monitor, or decrypt was compliant with the Act and Rules; the absence of any ex ante or ex post parliamentary or judicial oversight; and the failure of the government to enact a privacy/data protection law – results in a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and movement under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. It has been recognised by this Hon’ble Court in a catena of judgments that it is the existence of concentrated and centralized State power, rather than its actual or potential use that creates the chilling effect and leads to psychological restraint on the ability of citizens to think freely. This induces a change in behaviour, that is further violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.