48 XXVIII. BECAUSE, Section 69 of the IT Act is wider than even Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, rendering the provision liable to be struck down on grounds of void for vagueness a. First, Section 69 of the IT Act permits the appropriate government to “intercept, monitor or decrypt” any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource, without the prerequisite requirement of “public emergency” or “public safety” that is present in Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. This removes even the minimum modicum of safeguard present in the Telegraph Act. b. Second, the IT Act widens the second-tier test under the Telegraph Act by providing for two additional grounds for surveillance, namely in the interest of the “defence of India” and the “investigation of any offence”; which grounds do not find any mention in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. c. Third, Section obligation on 69(3) imposes intermediaries, an additional subscribers and persons in-charge of the computer resource to “extend all facilities and technical assistance” to the intercepting agency. XXIX. BECAUSE Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act requires a public emergency or an issue of public safety for the provision to even be triggered. Despite the fact that surveillance under the IT Act is not only comparable, but is perhaps more invasive than telephone tapping, there is no explanation for why this higher threshold of public