25 contents of surveillance orders, person(s), including the computer resource(s), and grounds. 25. It is also pertinent to note that in PUCL Wiretapping (supra), the vires of the parent statute - Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act of 1885 - that authorised phone-tapping, was not “seriously challenged”. B. Questionable Efficacy & Institutional Capacity under the Telegraph Rules & 2009 IT Rules 26. Based on information available in public domain, the Petitioners submit that the safeguards suggested by this Hon’ble Court in PUCL Wiretapping (supra) have not been effectively implemented by the Respondents and reveal a malice of inadequate institutional capacity and credible oversight on use of surveillance regulations. For example: (a) At any given point of time, the Authorised Agencies maintain surveillance on a large number of telephones and electronic devices. According to a news report published in India Today on 20.12.2010, more than 6,000 telephones were under watch in New Delhi alone. The list included bureaucrats, military officials, corporates, journalist and NGOs. True Copy of article “The Secret World of Telephone Tapping” published on India Today on 20.12.2010 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-6 (Page Nos. 111 to 119). (b) The Competent Authority receives and grants authorisation to a large number of surveillance requests. In response to