Declaring that any action of the State has to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14, 19 and

21 of the Indian Constitution, the Court noted that a restriction on any right must also satisfy
the test of judicial review under (a) the grounds specified under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution (primarily in the interest of sovereignty and security of the State, public order,
decency, morality etc.) and (b) the restriction should be reasonable. On the latter, the Court
sought to apply various standards, including application of the test of legitimate aim and the
doctrine of proportionality. Notably, the Court also analysed if it should apply “strict
scrutiny” standard or the “just, fair and reasonableness” standard to determine the legality of
the Act.

Doctrine of Proportionality:
Under the principle of proportionality, an action of the State allegedly violating the
right to privacy is required to be tested on three parameters: (a) the action must be
sanctioned by law; (b) the proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society
for a legitimate aim; and (c) the extent of such interference must be proportionate to
the need for such interference. Subsequent to an exposition of the understanding of
proportionality in various jurisdictions, the Court settled that four sub components
of proportionality need to be satisfied, these include:

(a) a measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage);

(b) it must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rationale

connection stage);

(c) there must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative (necessity
stage); and

(d) the measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder
(balancing stage). [p. 125]

In determining the application of the proportionality principle with respect to the

necessity stage (component ‘c’), the Court, relying on the judgment in Puttaswamy
I, adopted David Bilchitz’s analysis to declare that the following can be adopted to
preserve a meaningful but not unduly strict role for the necessity stage. First, a range
of possible alternatives to the measure employed by the Government must be
identified. Second, the effectiveness of these measures must be determined
individually; the test here is not whether each respective measure realises the
governmental objective to the same extent, but rather whether it realises it in a “real
and substantial manner.” Third, the impact of the respective measures on the right at
stake must be determined. Finally, an overall judgment must be made as to whether
in light of the findings of the previous steps, there exists an alternative which is
preferable.

In applying the test of proportionality – the Court held that (a) since Aadhaar Act
serves a legitimate State aim (legitimate goal stage), restriction on the right to
privacy is justified, (b) since there is no alternative “less restrictive” measure which
can achieve the same purpose, the Aadhaar Act also passed the muster of necessity
(necessity stage), (c) there was a rational nexus between the provisions of the Act and
the goals which it sought to attain (rationale connection stage), and (d) the Aadhaar
Act struck a fair balance between competing fundamental rights (i.e.) (balancing
stage).
Insofar as balancing was concerned, the majority examined the matter at two levels:
(i) whether, “legitimate state interest” ensured “reasonable tailoring”; and (ii)
whether balancing of two competing fundamental rights, right to privacy on the one
hand and right to food, shelter and employment on the other hand was done.

The Court observed, relying on Puttuswamy I, that Article 21 protects only those matters
over which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The majority tested this on two
prongs: first, the individual or individuals claiming a right to privacy must establish that
their claim involves a concern about some harm likely to be inflicted upon them on account
of the alleged act; second, the concern should not be unreasonable [p. 330]. It also held that
the triple test laid down in order to adjudge the reasonableness of the invasion to privacy was
made, as (a) the Aadhaar scheme was backed by the statute, i.e. the Aadhaar Act, (b) it
served legitimate State aim as one of ensuring targeted delivery of subsidies to beneficiaries,
through accurate identification and (c) it was proportionate.