Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 stored indefinitely without the consent of the individual and that the individual did not have an option to seek deletion. These aspects were vital for the Court to decide that the retention violated the citizens right to privacy. 180) Similarly, in the Digital Ireland case72, 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 which was generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications network, for the purpose of 72 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communication, Marine and Natural Resources [2014] All ER (D) 66 (Apr) fighting serious crime in the European Union. 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 Court of Justice of European Court (CJEU) evaluated the compatibility of the Directive with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and declared the Directive to be invalid. 181) According to the CJEU, 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 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It allowed very precise conclusion to be drawn concerning the 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 for the following reasons: (i) Absence of limitation of data retention pertaining to a particular time period and/or a particular geographical zone and/or to a circle of particular persons likely to be involved. (ii) Absence of objective criterion, substantive and procedural conditions to determine the limits of access of the competent national authorities to the data and their subsequent use for the purposes of prevention, detection or criminal prosecutions. There was no prior review carried out by a court or by an independent administrative body whose decision sought to limit access to the data and their use to what is strictly necessary for attaining the objective pursued. (iii) Absence of distinction being made between the categories of data collected based on their possible usefulness. (iv) Period of retention i.e. 6 months was very long being not based on an objective criterion. (v) Absence of rules to protect data retained against the risk of abuse and against any unlawful access and use of that data. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 134