In the Aadhaar judgment (Puttaswamy, 2018), the Supreme Court applied the proportionality test to balance privacy rights with state interests. Which use of Aadhaar was upheld as proportionate?

Puttaswamy (2018) Aadhaar proportionality analysis: (a) Context: Challenge to Aadhaar scheme's mandatory authentication requirements based on right to privacy under Article 21, (b) Proportionality analysis: (i) Legitimate aim: Prevent leakage in welfare delivery, curb tax evasion, (ii) Rational connection: Biometric authentication reduces identity fraud, ensures targeted welfare delivery, (iii) Necessity: Less restrictive alternatives considered; authentication necessary for large-scale welfare, tax compliance, (iv) Balancing: Benefits (efficient welfare, tax compliance) outweigh privacy intrusion for specified uses, (c) Upheld uses: (i) Authentication for welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund (ensures benefits reach intended beneficiaries), (ii) PAN-Aadhaar linking for tax purposes (curbs tax evasion, black money), (d) Struck down uses: (i) Mandatory linking with bank accounts, mobile numbers (disproportionate privacy intrusion), (ii) Mandatory use for school admissions, NEET/JEE exams (disproportionate for children's privacy), (e) Rationale: (i) Calibrated balancing: Proportionality enables nuanced assessment of privacy restrictions, not absolute prohibition or unlimited state power, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary; core privacy protected against disproportionate intrusion, (iii) Welfare efficiency: Enables efficient welfare delivery while protecting privacy through calibrated safeguards, (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.