42 Rules unconstitutional. This is because, by design, surveillance - which operates in secret - curtails the operation of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, as a person who suspects that she is under surveillance, in many cases will have no way of proving it, and cannot therefore establish a breach in accordance with Articles 32 and 226, until that information is revealed. The effective exclusion of Articles 32 and 226 therefore entails that, for all practical purposes, the decision of the Executive on whether fundamental rights have been validly and reasonably infringed, is final. It is respectfully submitted that this violates the requirements of fairness and due process under Article 21, as well as the broader requirements of natural justice. For these reasons, the absence of any judicial/parliamentary/independent oversight of the decision taken by the Review Committee renders the relevant Rules unconstitutional. XVII. BECAUSE, further, the denial of judicial scrutiny amounts to an effective denial of remedies under Article 21 of the Constitution. An individual under surveillance, by design, does not know that she is being surveiled, and cannot therefore challenge it as wrongful or illegal. In the absence of a judicial determination that surveillance meets the proportionality standards under Article 21, the lack of ability to approach the courts effectively entails the denial of the right itself. In other words, the very fact that, in a large number of cases, affected individuals will be unable to move the Court to enforce their rights under Article 21, requires that the infringement of those rights must be subject to judicial scrutiny.