40 touchstone on which infringement of Article 21 rights may be justified. However, reasonableness under Article 21 has evolved over the last twenty-two years, and has bent towards greater rights-protection, in the manner outlined herein. C. THE ACT AND RULES FAIL THE TEST OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY JUDICIAL OR INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT XIV. BECAUSE the IT Act and the 2009 IT Rules do not provide for any judicial, parliamentary, or independent oversight mechanism over electronic surveillance conducted under the Act and the Rules, either at the exante, ex-post, or the review stage. a. Ex-ante Stage: Section 69(1) permits the electronic surveillance of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource only by the Executive, i.e. by “the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officers specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf”. b. Ex-post facto Stage: Rule 3 of the 2009 Rules prescribes that the aforesaid directions under Section 69 can only be passed by an order “issued by the competent authority” (although in unavoidable circumstances, such orders may be issued by officers not below the rank of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India). Rule 2(d) of the 2009 Rules defines the “competent authority” as the (i) the