47 (Privacy) and in Mohd. Arif v Supreme Court, (2014) 9 SCC 737 held that a law would be amenable to challenge under Article 21 not only on the ground that the procedure which it prescribes is not fair, just and reasonable but also on the grounds that the substantive provisions of the law violate the Constitution and of violation of substantive due process. XXVI. BECAUSE the 2009 IT Rules require that the Review Committee (comprising of Executive officers) meet at least once every two months and record its findings about whether the directions issued under Rule 3 are in accordance with Section 69(2). However, responses under the RTI Act (annexed herein) have revealed that the Central Government alone issues 7500 to 9000 orders of interception of telephones in a month, while around 500 orders are issued every month for interception of emails. As noted by the Justice Srikrishna Committee Report, “the Review Committee has an unrealistic task of reviewing 15000-18000 interception orders in every meeting, while meeting once in two months.” It is thus clear that no proper application of mind can take place on every interception order, to determine if it is lawful or not. F. XXVII. MANIFEST ARBITRARINESS BECAUSE Section 69 of the Act ought to be struck down since it suffers from the vice of manifest arbitrariness, as it has been framed by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and without an adequate determining principle, even in comparison to Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act.