Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 has proposed another theory, which is an autonomy- based theory of what he calls the global model of constitutional rights, at the core of which lies the obligation of the State to take the autonomy interests of every person adequately into account 54. In this process, his understanding of autonomy leads to one consequence, viz., there will often be conflicts of autonomy interests, which have to be resolved in line with each agents 52 Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) 53 M Kumm, The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point and Purpose of Rights-Based Proportionality Review (2010) 4 Law & Ethics of Human Rights 141; M Kumm, Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the point of Judicial Review (2007) 1 European Journal of Legal Studies. 54 K Moller, The Global Model of Constitutional Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012). status as an equal. Here, the proportionality principle becomes the doctrinal tool which guides Judges through the process of resolving those conflicts. One thing is clear from the above, i.e. jurisprudential explanations of proportionality principle. There may be some differences about the approach on the application of proportionality doctrine, it is certain that proportionality has become the lingua franca of judicial systems across borders, concerning the circumstances under which it is appropriate to limit fundamental rights. 120) The proportionality test which is stated in the aforesaid judgment, accepting Justice Baraks conceptualisation, essentially takes the version which is used by the German Federal Constitutional Court and is also accepted by most theorists of proportionality. According to this test, a measure restricting a right must, first, serve a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage); it must, secondly, be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rational connection stage); thirdly, there must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative (necessity stage); and fourthly, the measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right-holder (balancing stage). 121) Many issues arise while undertaking the exercise of proportionality inquiry. At legitimate goal stage, question arises as to what does it mean to speak of the goal of a policy, and what does it mean to require a goal to be legitimate? 55 With regard to the suitability and necessity stages, some of the open issues are how to deal with empirical uncertainty: should this lead to wide- ranging deference to the elected branches? 56 At the balancing stage, we have to ask the question of what it means to say that a right is balanced against a competing right or public interest. One remarkable feature of the German test is that it tends to push most of the important issues into the last stage, viz., the balancing stage. At the legitimate goal stage, any goal that is legitimate will be accepted. At the suitability stage, even a marginal contribution to the achievement of the goal will suffice. At the necessity stage, it is very rare for a policy to fail because less restrictive alternatives normally come with some disadvantage and cannot, therefore, be considered equally effective. Thus, the balancing stage dominates the legal analysis and is usually determinative of the outcome. 55 On this issue there is a detailed discussion in M Kumm, Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights: On the Place and Limits of the Proportionality Requirement in Pavlakos (ed), Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2007) 131; Moller, the Global Model of Constitutional Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012) ch Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 109