A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY TEST: THE CASE OF IDENTITY SYSTEMS 42. An identity system’s infringement on privacy rights cannot be justified if unnecessary for or disproportionate to the benefits of the system. The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights recommends that states, inter alia, “ensure that data-intensive systems, including those involving the collection and retention of biometric data, are only deployed when States can demonstrate that they are necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.”142 43. This is emphasised in the UN General Assembly resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age: “Noting the increase in the collection of sensitive biometric information from individuals, and stressing that States must respect their human rights obligations and that business enterprises should respect the right to privacy and other human rights when collecting, processing, sharing and storing biometric information by, inter alia, considering the adoption of data protection policies and safeguards.”143 a) The dissent in the Aadhaar judgments finds that the Aadhaar system fails a proportionality test.144 The dissent accepts the state’s aim of effectively fulfilling its welfare programmes.145 However, the dissent argues that the infringement of the privacy has not been shown to be necessary for effectuating that purpose.146 142 UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age, 3 August 2018, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/29. 143 UN General Assembly Resolution 73/179, 17 December 2018. 144 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 254 of dissent. 145 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 176 of dissent. 146 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 254 of dissent. 36