Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 such an exercise involves the weighing up of competitive values, and ultimately an assessment based on proportionality i.e. balancing of different interests. 65. We may unhesitatingly remark that this doctrine of proportionality, explained hereinabove in brief, is enshrined in Article 19 itself when we read clause (1) along with clause (6) thereof. While defining as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction, this Court in a plethora of judgments has held that the expression reasonable restriction seeks to strike a balance between the freedom guaranteed by any of the sub-clauses of clause (1) of Article 19 and the social control permitted by any of the clauses (2) to (6). It is held that the expression reasonable connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interests of public. Further, in order to be reasonable, the restriction must have a reasonable relation to the object which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in excess of that object (see P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India). At the same time, reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of the interests of the general public and not from the point of view of the persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract considerations (see Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar). In M.R.F. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, this Court held that in examining the reasonableness of a statutory provision one has to keep in mind the following factors: (1) The directive principles of State policy. (2) Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general public. (3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances. (4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed and the social control envisaged by Article 19(6). (5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended to be satisfied by the restrictions. (6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or reasonable connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions, and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise. (emphasis in original) 119) We may note at this stage that there is a growing awareness of the practical importance of the principle of proportionality for rights adjudication and it has sparked a wave of academic scholarship as well. The first integrates the doctrine of proportionality into a broader theoretical framework. It is propounded by Robert Alexy, premised on the theory of rights as principles and optimisation requirements52. For Alexy, all norms are either rules or principles. Constitutional rights are principles, which means that they must be realised to the greatest extent factually and legally possible. For Alexy, the principle of proportionality follows logically from the nature of constitutional rights as principles. On the other hand, Mattias Kumm presented his theory of rights adjudication as Socratic contestation, with proportionality principle at its centre. As per Kumm, proportionality is the doctrinal tool which allows Judges to assess the reasonableness or plausibility, of a policy and thus to determine whether it survives Socratic contestation 53. Recently, Kai Moller Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 108