Post-Puttaswamy, Indian courts have required that surveillance activities (phone tapping, internet monitoring) comply with procedural safeguards including judicial oversight, proportionality assessment, and transparency to protect right to privacy under Article 21.

Privacy and surveillance safeguards: (a) Puttaswamy (2017): Recognized informational privacy as part of Article 21; state surveillance subject to proportionality test, (b) Procedural safeguards required: (i) Judicial oversight: Warrants, review mechanisms for surveillance activities, (ii) Proportionality assessment: Surveillance must pursue legitimate aim (security, crime prevention), be rationally connected, necessary, balanced, (iii) Transparency: Publication of policies, oversight reports, redressal mechanisms, (c) Applications: (i) Phone tapping: Telegraph Act, IT Act provisions require authorization, review, limits on duration/scope, (ii) Internet monitoring: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) required publication of shutdown orders, time-bound restrictions, judicial review, (iii) Data protection: DPDP Act, 2023 regulates state/corporate data collection, use, with consent, purpose limitation, security safeguards, (d) Challenges: (i) National security: Balancing privacy with legitimate security needs, (ii) Technological capacity: Ensuring safeguards keep pace with surveillance technologies, (iii) Awareness: Citizens informed about surveillance powers, rights, redressal, (e) Illustrates adaptive constitutionalism: Applying enduring privacy values to emerging surveillance contexts; proportionality ensures calibrated balancing of rights vs. state interests.