The doctrine of proportionality dictates that restrictions on fundamental rights must be necessary and appropriate to achieve a legitimate aim, without being excessive. It's a legal principle that ensures limitations on rights are justifiable and proportionate to the objective they are meant to serve.

The doctrine of proportionality in the context of fundamental rights dictates that restrictions on these rights must be necessary and justifiable to achieve a legitimate aim, and the means used to achieve that aim must be proportionate to the limitation imposed on the right. In essence, the restriction should not be excessive or overly intrusive, and there should be a reasonable balance between the restriction and the public interest it serves.
Here's a breakdown of how the doctrine applies:
1. Legitimate Goal: The restriction must be aimed at achieving a legitimate and valid objective recognized by law. This could be public safety, national security, public order, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
2. Suitability: The restriction must be suitable for achieving the intended goal. In other words, there should be a rational connection between the measure taken and the objective it is meant to achieve.
3. Necessity: The restriction must be necessary to achieve the legitimate goal. This means that there should be no less restrictive means available that would be equally effective in achieving the same purpose. The restriction should be the least intrusive measure possible.
4. Balancing: The restriction should not have a disproportionate impact on the fundamental right holder. The benefits gained by restricting the right should be weighed against the harm caused by the restriction. The restriction should not be excessive in relation to the public interest it serves.