Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 abuse. The assessment depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to authorise, carry out and supervise them, and the kind of remedy provided by the national law. The Court has to determine whether the procedures for supervising the ordering and implementation of the restrictive measures are such as to keep the interference to what is necessary in a democratic society. 142) Two other cases of violation of Article of the European Convention of Human Rights were cited, namely Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Communication, Marine and Natural Resources65 and S and Marper v. United Kingdom66. In Digital Ireland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 2006/24/EC (Directive), which regulated Internet Service Providers storage of telecommunications data. It could be used to retain data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications network for the purpose of fighting serious crime in the European Union (EU). The data included data necessary to trace and identify the source of communication and its destination, to identify the date, time duration, type of communication, IP address, telephone number and other fields. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) evaluated the compatibility of the Directive with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and declared the Directive to be invalid. According to the ECJ, the Directive interfered with the right to respect for private life under Article 7 and with the right to the protection of personal data under Article 8. It allowed very precise conclusion to be drawn concerning the 65 [2014] All ER (D) 66 (Apr) 66 (2008) ECHR 1581 private lives of the persons whose data had been retained, such as habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily and other movements, activities carried out, social relationships and so on. The invasion of right was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 143) In S and Marper, the storing of DNA profiles and cellular samples of any person arrested in the United Kingdom was challenged before the ECtHR. Even if the individual was never charged, if criminal proceedings were discontinued, or if the person was later acquitted of any crime, their DNA profile could nevertheless be kept permanently on record. It held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. Fingerprints, DNA profiles and cellular samples, constituted personal data and their retention was capable of affecting private life of an individual. Retention of such data without consent, thus, constitutes violation of Article 8 as they relate to identified and identifiable individuals. The Court held that invasion of privacy 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. 144) The respondents, on the other hand, rebutted the arguments of the petitioners that the architecture of the Aadhaar Act enables State surveillance. It was submitted that bare minimal information was obtained from the individual who enrolled for Aadhaar. Insofar as demographic Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 119