31 dovetailed with each substantive legislation relating to national security. The U.S. and Canada too, require judicial authorisation for interception. True Copy of the Report titled “A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians” (relevant excerpts) submitted by the Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice B. N. Srikrishna dated 27.06.2018 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-14 (Page Nos. 232 to 305). 34. It is respectfully submitted that these authoritative sources make it clear that the “procedural safeguards” limb of the broader proportionality enquiry – as set out in the judgment(s) in Puttaswamy – require judicial oversight of surveillance. 35. In the above premises, aggrieved by the legal provisions governing ‘Electronic Surveillance’ in India under the IT Act and Rules thereunder, the Petitioners prefer the present Writ Petition inter alia on the following grounds, which are urged in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: GROUNDS A. LEGAL INJURY AND HARM I. BECAUSE there is no scope for an individual subjected to surveillance to approach a court of law, either prior to, or during or subsequent to, acts of surveillance, since the system itself is covert, especially where it relates to electronic surveillance based on the grounds specified in section 69(1), namely “in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing