In Anuradha Bhasis v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court required that internet shutdown orders must be time-bound and subject to periodic review. This requirement primarily addresses which step of the proportionality test?

Anuradha Bhasis (2020) time-bound restrictions and proportionality: (a) Context: Challenge to internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir following Article 370 abrogation; issue of balancing digital free speech with national security, (b) Proportionality test - necessity step: (i) No less restrictive alternative available: State must adopt least restrictive means to achieve legitimate aim, (ii) Time-bound restrictions: Indefinite shutdowns rarely least restrictive; time-bound measures with periodic review preferred, (iii) Periodic review: Ensures restrictions remain necessary, proportionate as circumstances evolve, (c) Applications: (i) J&K internet shutdown case: Court directed publication of orders, periodic review, time-bound restrictions, (ii) Digital governance: DPDP Act, 2023 requires data retention limits, periodic review of data processing as least restrictive means, (iii) Algorithmic accountability: Emerging jurisprudence requires periodic review of automated decision-making affecting rights, (d) Rationale: (i) Rights protection: Time-bound restrictions ensure core rights protected against unnecessary, indefinite intrusion, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Enables state to pursue legitimate aims while minimizing impact on individual rights through temporal limits, (iii) Calibrated balancing: Necessity step ensures restrictions are truly necessary, not merely convenient for state, and remain necessary over time, (e) Illustrates sophisticated judicial review: Proportionality test enables courts to ensure state adopts least restrictive means, including temporal limits; protects rights while enabling legitimate state action through calibrated, necessary, time-bound restrictions.