122 Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 which makes all this information confidential. Rule 25(4) of these Rules mandates that strict confidentiality has to be maintained in respect of direction for interception or monitoring. Although Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 overrides the provisions in any law which are inconsistent with the RTI Act, the Government often cites national security as the reason to prevent access to this information. Thus, all we have to gauge the quantum of electronic surveillance which is going on are the transparency reports released by these online service providers. SFLC.IN had filed an application under the RTI Act to obtain information on tapping of telephones and monitoring of emails. The Ministry of Home Affairs in its reply dated August 6, 2013 has stated that on an average 7500 to 9000 orders for interception of telephones and 300 to 500 orders for interception of emails are issued by the Central Government every month. If you add to this the orders issued by the State Governments for telephone tapping and email monitoring, the numbers will be shocking. These figures could only be the tip of the iceberg as the legal provisions make it fairly easy for law enforcement agencies to gather this data. In India, S.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) gives powers to any officer in charge of a police station to ask for production of any document for the purpose of investigation. This broad provision is often misused by law enforcement agencies to get information from Internet Intermediaries. Moreover, sub-rule 7 of Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 makes it even easier for any law enforcement agency to obtain information from an intermediary.