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?

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.