Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court applied the proportionality test to balance privacy rights with state interests. Which of the following is NOT a step in the proportionality test as applied in this case?
- Legitimate aim: Restriction must pursue valid public interest
- Rational connection: Means must be suitable to achieve aim
- Absolute prohibition: Rights cannot be restricted under any circumstances
- Balancing: Benefits must outweigh harm to rights
Answer: Absolute prohibition: Rights cannot be restricted under any circumstances
Puttaswamy (2017) proportionality test application: (a) Context: Challenge to Aadhaar scheme, surveillance laws based on right to privacy under Article 21, (b) Proportionality test steps applied: (i) Legitimate aim: Restriction must pursue valid public interest (security, welfare efficiency, tax compliance), (ii) Rational connection: Means must be suitable to achieve aim (e.g., Aadhaar authentication reduces identity fraud), (iii) Necessity: No less restrictive alternative available (e.g., targeted vs. mass surveillance), (iv) Balancing: Benefits of restriction must outweigh harm to privacy rights, (c) NOT step: Absolute prohibition — Court recognized rights can be restricted if proportionate; privacy not absolute but subject to calibrated restrictions, (d) Applications: (i) Aadhaar authentication: Upheld for welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund, PAN-Aadhaar linking for tax; struck down for bank accounts, mobile numbers, school admissions as disproportionate privacy intrusion, (ii) Data protection: DPDP Act, 2023 operationalizes privacy principles with consent, minimization, security safeguards, (iii) Surveillance oversight: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) applied proportionality to internet shutdowns, requiring publication, time-bound orders, judicial review, (e) Rationale: (i) Calibrated balancing: Proportionality enables nuanced assessment of rights restrictions, not absolute prohibition or unlimited state power, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary; core rights protected against disproportionate intrusion, (iii) Democratic legitimacy: Enables state to pursue legitimate aims while protecting individual rights through calibrated review, (f) Illustrates sophisticated judicial review: Proportionality test enables courts to balance rights vs. state interests; ensures restrictions are justified, necessary, balanced, not arbitrary or overbroad.