36 V. BECAUSE the chilling effect caused by the operation of the surveillance framework in India, is best explained in the Justice Srikrishna Committee Report: “The design of the current legal framework in India is responsible for according a wide remit to intelligence and law enforcement agencies. At the same time, it lacks sufficient legal and procedural safeguards to protect individual civil liberties. Much intelligencegathering does not happen under the remit of the law, there is little meaningful oversight that is outside the executive, and there is a vacuum in checks and balances to prevent the untrammeled rise of a surveillance society.” VI. BECAUSE the absence of any mechanism whereby a citizen is informed that they have been placed under surveillance, post facto or at any point in the future, further adds to this environment of uncertainty, where the behaviour of a citizen is modulated by the chilling effect on the broad sweep of surveillance practices, rather than any actual notice of their privacy being infringed. B. EVOLUTION ASSESS OF THE THE ‘PROPORTIONALITY STANDARD’ VIOLATION FUNDAMENTAL OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS, CAUSED BY A SYSTEM OF TO OTHER STATE SURVEILLANCE VII. BECAUSE, while the 2009 IT Rules impugned herein, ostensibly flow from the standards and guidelines laid down in PUCL Wiretapping (supra), that standard needs to be updated in view of the circumstances of that case, the changed factual scenario twenty-two years later, and the evolution of subsequent jurisprudence. Partly, this is because PUCL Wiretapping (supra) dealt with phone