49 emergency/public safety is absent from Section 69 of the IT Act. This inexplicable difference in Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and Section 69 of the IT Act, in itself, is evidence that Section 69 of the IT Act is capricious and irrational (especially given the absence of judicial oversight), apart from being disproportionate, excessive and unreasonable. XXX. BECAUSE as would be evident from the Wiretapping judgment (supra), the trigger requirement of a public emergency or public safety also brings in an element of transparency, as is evident from the extract below: “28. Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the provisions of the said section. “Occurrence of any public emergency” or “in the interest of public safety” are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. Unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said section. Public emergency would mean the prevailing of a sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action. The expression “public safety” means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large. When either of these two conditions are not in existence, the Central Government or a State Government or the authorised officer cannot resort to telephone-tapping even though there is satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India etc. In other words, even if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security of the