Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 interferences, however, must be justified on grounds of a legitimate idea of justice, an overlapping consensus 50 that can be shared by most individuals and groups. Whenever such tension arises, the task of balancing is to be achieved by the Courts. We would like to highlight one more significant feature which the issues involved in the present case bring about. It is the balancing of two facets of dignity of the same individual. Whereas, on the one hand, right of personal autonomy is a part of dignity (and right to privacy), another part of dignity of the same individual is to lead a dignified life as well (which is again a 50 Overlapping consensus is a term coined by John Rawls that identifies basic ideas of justice that can be shared by supporters of different religious, political, and moral comprehensive doctrines. facet of Article 21 of the Constitution). Therefore, in a scenario where the State is coming out with welfare schemes, which strive at giving dignified life in harmony with human dignity and in the process some aspect of autonomy is sacrificed, the balancing of the two becomes an important task which is to be achieved by the Courts. For, there cannot be undue intrusion into the autonomy on the pretext of conferment of economic benefits. Precisely, this very exercise of balancing is undertaken by the Court in resolving the complex issues raised in the petitions. Doctrine of Proportionality: 117) As noted above, whenever challenge is laid to an action of the State on the ground that it violates the right to privacy, the action of the State is to be tested on the following 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. 118) Doctrine of proportionality was explained by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 51. In 51 (2016) 7 SCC 353 the first instance, therefore, it would be apt to reproduce the said discussion: 60. ...Thus, while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the statute and rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is what is known as doctrine of proportionality. Jurisprudentially, proportionality can be defined as the set of rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law to be constitutionally permissible. According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 105