Doctrine of proportionality
Doctrine of Proportionality
The Doctrine of Proportionality is a principle in constitutional law and administrative law that acts as a test to ensure that the actions of the government or state authorities do not exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. It ensures a balance between the right of the individual and the power of the state.
Basic Idea:
Any law or executive action limiting a fundamental right should be:
Suitable (i.e., it must be capable of achieving the intended objective),
Necessary (there should be no less restrictive means available),
Proportionate in strict sense (the benefits of the action must outweigh the harm caused).
This doctrine prevents excessive or arbitrary state actions and is widely used to review laws or policies limiting fundamental rights.
Case Laws Explaining Doctrine of Proportionality
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Brief:
This landmark case expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a reason.
Held:
The court held that any procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be “fair, just, and reasonable.” This case introduced the principle of proportionality in Indian constitutional law, stating that state action restricting rights must not be arbitrary and should satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality.
Key Point:
The Court rejected the “procedure established by law” test and applied a broader test of due process, embedding proportionality.
2. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
Brief:
This case dealt with the validity of a government order reserving promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees.
Facts:
The order reserving promotions was challenged as violative of equality under Article 14.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the reservation but emphasized that reservations must be proportionate and cannot exceed the necessity for the intended affirmative action.
Key Point:
This case laid the groundwork for proportionality in affirmative action, stating that reservations must be reasonable and proportionate to achieve social justice without overriding the principle of equality.
3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Brief:
The case concerned the eviction of pavement dwellers from public spaces.
Facts:
The Bombay Municipal Corporation attempted to evict pavement dwellers without providing alternative accommodation.
Held:
The Court ruled that the right to livelihood is part of Article 21 and state action evicting people must meet the test of proportionality. Eviction without adequate alternatives was held disproportionate.
Key Point:
The eviction was struck down as it was excessive and not necessary, reflecting the application of proportionality in the context of socio-economic rights.
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Brief:
This was the landmark privacy judgment.
Facts:
The issue was the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme (a biometric identification program).
Held:
The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Restrictions on privacy must pass the test of proportionality—meaning the state's action must be suitable, necessary, and balanced with the individual's right.
Key Point:
The doctrine of proportionality was explicitly applied to privacy rights, marking a major development in constitutional jurisprudence.
5. R. v. Oakes (1986) (Canadian Case)
Brief:
Though a foreign case, this is a foundational case for the doctrine of proportionality in common law countries.
Facts:
The accused was charged under a law that reversed the burden of proof.
Held:
The Supreme Court of Canada laid down the Oakes Test — a structured proportionality test to decide if rights can be limited.
Key Point:
The Oakes Test is often referenced globally and has four parts:
The objective must be pressing and substantial,
The means must be rationally connected to the objective,
The means should impair the right as little as possible,
There must be proportionality between the effects of the measures and the objective.
Summary of Doctrine Application
| Case | Key Point on Proportionality |
|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Introduced proportionality in fundamental rights. |
| State of Kerala (1976) | Affirmative action must be proportionate. |
| Olga Tellis (1985) | State action evicting must be balanced and necessary. |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy rights limited only by proportional measures. |
| R. v. Oakes (1986) | Developed a structured proportionality test. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments