E Judgment”), and this view has subsequently been upheld in Puttaswamy (Privacy) and Puttaswamy (Aadhaar). Given that violation of the fundamental right to privacy is apparent ex facie, the next question which would arise is whether the Impugned Provisions and Notification would survive scrutiny based on the proportionality standard. Apart from establishing that a law impacting privacy subserves a legitimate goal, and that such a measure is rationally connected to such goal, it must also be established (in order for such a government measure to survive scrutiny): - i. That there are no alternative less invasive measures (i.e. the test of necessity) ii. The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder (balancing stage), i.e. there is a proper relation between the importance of achieving the aim and importance of limiting the right. Additionally, as established in Puttaswamy (Privacy), there must also be adequate procedural safeguards in place, for such a measure to pass muster. This schema to analyze the violation of privacy rights was not a part of our jurisprudence when this Hon’ble Court took a lenient view of the absence of judicial oversight while dealing with Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act in the Wiretapping Judgment. It is the Petitioners case that, in light of the law laid down in Puttaswamy (Privacy) and Puttaswamy (Aadhaar), the lack of any oversight, in itself, warrants a finding that the Impugned Provisions and the Impugned Notification are unconstitutional for the following reasons: - i. Apart from disturbing the horizontal separation of powers, as mentioned hereinabove, the concentration of disproportionate