In balancing right to privacy under Article 21 with employer interests, courts apply proportionality test to workplace surveillance. Which surveillance practice would likely FAIL proportionality test?

Workplace surveillance and proportionality: (a) Constitutional basis: Article 21 (right to privacy) applies in workplace; employer interests (security, productivity) balanced with employee privacy, (b) Proportionality test application: (i) Legitimate aim: Security, productivity, prevention of misconduct, (ii) Rational connection: Surveillance must be suitable to achieve aim, (iii) Necessity: No less restrictive alternative available (e.g., targeted vs. continuous monitoring), (iv) Balancing: Benefits of surveillance vs. harm to privacy, autonomy, trust, (c) Analysis of options: (i) CCTV in common areas: Legitimate aim (security), rational connection, necessary, balanced with notice — likely passes proportionality, (ii) Continuous email monitoring without purpose/notice: Fails legitimate aim, rational connection, necessity; less restrictive alternatives available — likely fails proportionality, (iii) Biometric attendance: Legitimate aim (attendance tracking), rational connection, necessary with data safeguards — likely passes, (iv) Performance monitoring with consent: Legitimate aim, rational connection, necessary, balanced with transparency/consent — likely passes, (d) Applications: (i) DPDP Act, 2023: Requires consent, purpose limitation for employee data processing, (ii) Labor laws: Require consultation with workers, transparency in monitoring practices, (e) Illustrates calibrated rights balancing: Privacy in workplace subject to legitimate employer interests; proportionality ensures surveillance justified, not arbitrary, preserving dignity while enabling legitimate business needs.