1. What is Proportionality Review?

Proportionality is a constitutional test used to determine whether a restriction on fundamental rights is valid.

A state action (like genomic surveillance) must satisfy:

Four-step test:

1. Legitimate aim
   → Is the objective valid (e.g., public health protection)?
2. Suitability (rational connection)
   → Does surveillance actually help achieve disease control?
3. Necessity (least restrictive means)
   → Is there a less intrusive method than genetic surveillance?
4. Balancing (proportionality stricto sensu)
   → Does public benefit outweigh privacy intrusion?

2. Why Genomic Surveillance Raises Legal Issues

Genomic surveillance can involve:

• Collection of human biological samples
• DNA/RNA sequencing
• Tracking infection chains
• Storage of sensitive health data
• Cross-border data sharing

Risks:

• Violation of privacy (genetic identity is permanent)
• Discrimination (insurance, employment misuse)
• Unauthorized state surveillance
• Data breaches

3. Constitutional Basis in India

• Article 21 → Right to life includes privacy and health
• Article 14 → Non-arbitrariness in surveillance
• Article 19 → Freedom of movement and expression (indirect impact)

4. Major Case Laws on Genomic Surveillance & Proportionality

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — Privacy & Data Control

Facts:

Challenge to Aadhaar scheme involving biometric and identity data collection.

Issues:

• Is collection of personal biometric/genetic data a violation of privacy?
• What limits apply to state surveillance systems?

Judgment:

• Supreme Court held:
  • Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21
  • Includes informational privacy and bodily integrity
• Introduced proportionality test as constitutional standard

Key Principles:

• State surveillance must be:
  • lawful
  • necessary
  • proportionate
• Data collection must not be excessive or arbitrary

Relevance to Genomic Surveillance:

• Genetic data is among the highest form of sensitive personal data
• Any genomic monitoring must pass strict proportionality review
• Forms the constitutional foundation for all health surveillance systems

2. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Case) v. Union of India (2018)

Facts:

Challenge to mandatory linking of Aadhaar with services, involving biometric authentication.

Issues:

• Can state collect and centralize biometric data for welfare?
• Is mass identity surveillance justified?

Judgment:

• Court upheld Aadhaar but imposed strict limits:
  • No excessive data storage
  • No private-sector unrestricted use
  • Strict purpose limitation

Key Findings:

• Data collection must be minimal and purpose-specific
• Large-scale identity systems must be tightly controlled

Relevance:

• Genomic surveillance must follow:
  • purpose limitation (only public health use)
  • data minimization
  • restricted access
• Prevents creation of uncontrolled genetic databases

3. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) — Right to Dignity & Bodily Autonomy

Facts:

Case on passive euthanasia and living wills.

Issues:

• Does bodily autonomy include control over biological decisions?
• Can state override individual bodily integrity?

Judgment:

• Supreme Court recognized:
  • Right to dignity includes control over body and medical choices
• Any state intrusion must satisfy strict necessity

Relevance:

• Genetic material is part of bodily identity
• Genomic surveillance affects:
  • bodily integrity
  • biological autonomy
• Therefore requires heightened proportionality scrutiny

4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) — Protection Against Biological Testing Without Consent

Facts:

Challenge to involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests.

Issues:

• Can state force biological/neurological testing?
• Does it violate Article 20(3) and Article 21?

Judgment:

• Supreme Court held:
  • Forced scientific testing violates personal liberty
  • Consent is mandatory for invasive procedures
• Such techniques affect mental privacy and bodily autonomy

Key Principle:

• No forced extraction of biological information without consent

Relevance:

• Genomic surveillance involves biological sampling and sequencing
• Therefore:
  • Consent
  • necessity
  • safeguards
    are constitutionally required

5. Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) — Proportionality Doctrine Adoption

Facts:

Challenge to state regulation of private medical admissions.

Issues:

• Are restrictions on private autonomy justified?

Judgment:

• Supreme Court formally adopted proportionality test in India
• Held:
  • State action must be least restrictive and balanced

Relevance:

• Directly applies to public health surveillance systems
• Genomic surveillance must:
  • not exceed necessity
  • use least intrusive data methods
• Provides structured judicial test for evaluating surveillance programs

6. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — Surveillance & Necessity Principle

Facts:

Challenge to internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir.

Issues:

• Can state impose restrictions in the name of security?
• Must restrictions be proportionate?

Judgment:

• Supreme Court held:
  • Restrictions must satisfy necessity and proportionality
  • Blanket restrictions are unconstitutional

Key Principle:

• State must justify why less restrictive measures are insufficient

Relevance:

• Genomic surveillance cannot be:
  • blanket or unlimited
• Must be:
  • targeted (specific outbreak zones or pathogens)
  • time-bound
  • justified scientifically

7. Puttaswamy (Privacy 2.0 Principles in later rulings) — Data Protection Expansion

Across later judgments, courts reinforced:

• Data fiduciary responsibility of state
• Purpose limitation
• Storage limitation
• Security safeguards

Relevance:

• Genomic databases must ensure:
  • encryption
  • anonymization
  • restricted access
  • deletion after purpose ends

5. Principles Emerging from Case Law

From these cases, the legal framework for genomic surveillance is:

1. Privacy is fundamental and includes biological/genetic data

→ Puttaswamy

2. Surveillance must pass strict proportionality test

→ Modern Dental College, Puttaswamy

3. Bodily autonomy limits state intrusion

→ Common Cause

4. No forced biological data extraction without safeguards

→ Selvi v. State of Karnataka

5. Restrictions must be necessary and least intrusive

→ Anuradha Bhasin

6. Data use must be purpose-limited and minimal

→ Aadhaar judgment

6. Applying Proportionality to Genomic Surveillance

A lawful genomic surveillance system must ensure:

A. Legitimate Aim

• Disease control
• outbreak tracking
• public health safety

B. Suitability

• Genomic sequencing must scientifically improve containment

C. Necessity

• Cannot replace with:
  • clinical reporting alone
  • anonymized epidemiology (if insufficient)

D. Balancing

• Benefits (public health) vs risks (privacy breach)

7. Conclusion

Public health genomic surveillance sits at the intersection of:

• public health necessity
• constitutional privacy rights
• bodily autonomy
• data protection principles

Indian courts consistently apply proportionality review to ensure that even in emergencies like pandemics:

The state may collect genetic and health data, but only in a manner that is necessary, minimal, scientifically justified, and constitutionally proportionate.