Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 176) It articulated the proportionality principle in the following words: 101. An interference will be considered necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim if it answers a pressing social need and, in particular, if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient xx xx xx The protection of personal data is of fundamental importance to a person's enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private and family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The domestic law must afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any such use of personal data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees of this Article. The need for such safeguards is all the greater where the protection of personal data undergoing automatic processing is concerned, not least when such data are used for police purposes. The domestic law should notably ensure that such data are relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are stored; and preserved in a form which permits identification of the data subjects for no longer than is required for the purpose for which those data are stored The domestic law must also afford adequate guarantees that retained personal data was efficiently protected from misuse and abuse. 177) The issue in the case according to the Court was whether the retention of the fingerprints and DNA data of the applicants, as persons who had been suspected but not convicted of certain criminal offences, was justified under Article 8 of the Convention. 178) The Court held that such invasion of privacy was not proportionate as it was not necessary in a democratic society as it did not fulfill any pressing social need. The blanket and indiscriminate nature of retention of data was excessive and did not strike a balance between private and public interest. It held: 125. the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. This conclusion obviates the need for the Court to consider the applicants' criticism regarding the adequacy of certain particular safeguards, such as too broad an access to the personal data concerned and insufficient protection against the misuse or abuse of such data. 179) The two crucial aspects of the case that need to be kept in mind are First, in that case, the fingerprints were collected for criminal purposes and without the consent of the individual to whom the fingerprints belonged. Second, the fingerprints were to be Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 133