37 tapping, much before the age of large-scale interception and surveillance of electronic communication. As this Hon’ble Court recognised in Puttaswamy (Privacy), the age of big data and digital surveillance presents a unique and specific set of challenges, which are not easily reducible to the problems and issues faced in the brickand-mortar world. VIII. BECAUSE a majority of the judges in Puttaswamy (Privacy) endorsed the globally-operating “proportionality standards” - applied, broadly, by constitutional courts in jurisdictions such as the European Union, Canada, and South Africa - to gauge the constitutionality of restrictions on right to privacy, i.e. to ascertain the (a) legality, (b) legitimate goal, (c) proportionality and (d) procedural guarantees/safeguards of the impugned provision that has violated the right to privacy. IX. BECAUSE the component of proportionality was further elaborated by the Constitution Bench decision of this Hon’ble Court in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar), which held that the following four sub-components of proportionality need to be satisfied before the validity of a law can be upheld (at Pr. 267 & 433): – A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage) and it is designated for a proper purpose. – It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rationale connection stage), i.e. measures are undertaken to effectuate the limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of the purpose.