Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 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; and this judgment will go beyond the strict means- ends assessment favoured by Grimm and the German version of the proportionality test; it will also require a form of balancing to 59 On the various problems which the Canadian Supreme Court created for itself because of its early unfortunate statements on proportionality see S Choudhry, So What Is the Real Legacy of Oakes? Two Decades of Proportionality Analysis under the Canadian Charters Section 1 (2006) 34 Supreme Court Law Review 501. be carried out at the necessity stage. 124) Insofar as second problem in German test is concerned, it can be taken care of by avoiding ad-hoc balancing and instead proceeding on some bright-line rules i.e. by doing the act of balancing on the basis of some established rule or by creating a sound rule. We may point out that whereas Chandrachud, J. has formulated the test of legitimate state interest, other two of the Judges, namely, Chelameswar and Sapre, JJ. have used the test of compelling state interest and not legitimate state interest. On the other hand, S.K. Kaul, J. has held that the test to be applied is whether the law satisfies public interest. Nariman, J., on the other hand, pointed out that the Right to Information Act, 2005 has provided for personal information being disclosed to third parties subject to larger public interest being satisfied. If this test is applied, the result is that one would be entitled to invoke large public interest in lieu of legitimate state aim or legitimate state interest, as a permissible restriction on a claim to privacy of an individual a more lenient test. However, since judgment of Chandrachud, J. is on behalf of himself and three other Judges and S.K. Kaul, J. has also virtually adopted the same test, we can safely adopt the test of legitimate state interest as the majority opinion, instead of applying the test of compelling state interest. 125) In Modern Dental College & Research Centre, four sub components or proportionality which need to be satisfied were taken note of. These are: (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). (d) The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder (balancing stage). 126) This has been approved in K.S. Puttaswamy as well. Therefore, the aforesaid stages of proportionality can be looked into and discussed. Of course, while undertaking this exercise it has also to be seen that the legitimate goal must be of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom and also that such a right impairs freedom as little as possible. This Court, in its earlier judgments, applied German approach while applying proportionality test to the case at hand. We would like to proceed on that very basis which, however, is tempered with more nuanced approach as suggested by Bilchitz. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 111