41 Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, in case of the Central Government; or (ii) the Secretary in charge of the Home Department, in case of a State Government or Union territory. Thus, there is no provision for judicial/independent oversight prior to the authorisation of surveillance, which order can only be given by an Executive officer. c. Review Stage: Rule 2(q) read with Rule 7 read with Rule 22 of the 2009 IT Rules requires that any directions issued under Rule 3 of the IT Rules have to be reviewed by the Review Committee set up under Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, which does not comprise any judicial/independent member. Under Rule 419A(16) of the Telegraph Rules, the Review Committee at the Centre comprises solely of members of the executive, namely the Cabinet Secretary; the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Legal Affairs; and Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Telecommunications. The decision taken by the Review Committee is final, is not subject to parliamentary or judicial oversight, and does not require hearing the concerned individual pre or post the decision to place them under surveillance. XV. BECAUSE apart from the Telegraph Act and the IT Act (which contain almost identical provisions on review), there is currently no data protection or privacy law that would safeguard the privacy rights of Indian citizens. XVI. BECAUSE the absence of judicial authorisation as a precondition (or, in cases involving an emergency, post-facto adjudication) for interception and surveillance renders the