Doctrine of Proportionality

Introduction 

The Doctrine of Proportionality is regarded as a fundamental principle in constitutional and administrative law, aimed at making sure that state restrictions and actions on individual rights are fair, balanced, and not excessive. This Doctrine is legally designed to protect Human Rights in harmony with democracy. In simple terms, it guarantees that the relationship between the means used and the results achieved is proportionate, and that the measures taken are just, fair, and reasonable.

This Doctrine is also used as a principle to determine whether action or reasonable force has been taken. As part of the Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness, it has been stated that “if a decision is so unreasonable that no sensible authority could ever take it, such decisions are liable to be quashed through judicial review.” This is applied in various criminal law or constitutional law cases to assess whether the action is proportionate and not excessive, such as in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), sections 34 to 44 (Chapter III, General Exceptions, of right of private defence) and many more sections, which similarly employ this doctrine with the idea that punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The Doctrine of Proportionality acts as a check on governmental power, safeguarding and ensuring that the actions limiting rights are neither excessive nor arbitrary. By demanding suitability, necessity, and balance in the state interests with personal freedoms, it reinforces constitutional governance. It guarantees that limitations on liberty are always fair, necessary, and proportionate to their purpose, thereby preserving justice and harmony between governance and freedom.

What is the Doctrine of Proportionality

The Doctrine of Proportionality is considered to be a legal standard and principle that checks how far the state may impose restrictions on individual rights while remaining fair, reasonable, and balanced. It emphasizes that state actions must be reasonable and not impose a burden greater than necessary to achieve a lawful purpose. This results in preventing arbitrary or excessive interference with personal freedoms, requiring that state measures always be connected to a legitimate aim and limited in scope.

The Doctrine functions and operates through three core requirements, which are:

1. Suitability- It means that the measure taken must be rationally related to the purpose it seeks to achieve.
2. Necessity- It means the state must and is obligated to adopt the method that has no alternative, less restrictive measures, and could also serve the same purpose effectively.
3. Strict Balancing (Proportionate Stricto Sensu/ Proportionate in strict sense)- It requires a balancing exercise where the benefits of the measure and restriction taken must outweigh the harm it causes to the individual and their fundamental rights.

These are the general requirements for the doctrine, but in the Indian Courts, this doctrine is applied as a four-pronged or four-component proportionality test, particularly since Modern Dental College V. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), which includes Legitimate Aim, meaning the restriction must serve a genuine and reasonable constitutional purpose and not an arbitrary result.

Evolution of the Doctrine

The founding principles of the Doctrine of Proportionality can be traced back to ancient Greek principles and European history. The two similar principles from Greek, which are “Justitia Vindicativa” and “Justitia Distributiva,” refer to “corrective justice and distributive justice,” respectively, and helped develop the doctrine further. It was first recorded in the history of Prussia during the 18th and 19th centuries, eventually integrating into the German judicial system. The German Constitution incorporated this doctrine after the Second World War, and in 1959, the European Convention on Human Rights also adopted it. Furthermore, it became part of the Wednesbury principle, especially in judicial review within administrative law, to determine whether decisions are legal, reasonable, and proportionate to the aims they seek to achieve. 

The Doctrine of Proportionality is a constructive approach concept that has no uniform method to apply. The framework and application of the doctrine depend on how one understands and comprehends it. It basically means to maintain a check and balance between the interests of society and the rights of individuals. The doctrine evolved and developed to the point where it was becoming a part of the constitution all over the world. Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, etc., involve this doctrine in the judicial and court system for balance, and while the United States judicial system, rejected the doctrine in its early stages, but has now started to apply it in cases filed before the US Court. 

The approach taken by India in this doctrine was to use this principle in a restrictive sense, as it can be contradicted by the Common Law Judicial review and its traditional approach, which has become a part of the Indian Court system. Adopting this doctrine with the same notion as Europeans is yet to occur in India, which means that the concept, idea, and impression of the doctrine are completely different in interpretation, and yet similar in action. Even with the narrow vision of the doctrine, it still works and maintains balance by examining whether the classification is based on “Intelligible differentia,” which means classification should and must be reasonable and not arbitrary or excessive. The doctrine is also considered and applied as part of Article 14 (“Equality before the Law”) of the Indian Constitution, which ensures “equal protection of law and equality before the law”. It is also closely related to Article 19(“Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.”) and Article 21(” Protection of life and personal liberty”), and acts as a tool to check the arbitrary administrative actions and ensure that any limitations on fundamental rights are proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the state.

Salient Features of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Proportionality is characterized by possessing several defining features that highlight its importance in constitutional and administrative law.

The doctrine serves as a balancing instrument, ensuring that individual rights coexist without one dominating the other, while also allowing the state to pursue legitimate objectives, such as public order or security. Courts also apply a structured four-step test to examine whether the restriction pursues a legitimate aim, the rational connection of the measure, the necessity of the restriction, and whether the benefits outweigh the harm through strict balancing and proportionality.

It provides a judicial standard with an objective and transparent method to review state action, preventing arbitrary decisions and making judicial review less subjective and more principled, ensuring consistency in constitutional adjudication. It also serves a protective function, acting as a safeguard against excessive or disproportionate restrictions on freedoms.

The doctrine application is context-specific, which very on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that restrictions are tested against the factual background, purpose, and impact, preventing a rigid or one-size-fits-all approach. This also shows that the doctrine is very adaptable and flexible, as it is not just confined to fundamental rights cases but is also employed in administrative law, such as reviewing disciplinary penalties, licensing restrictions, or regulatory contexts. 

Landmark Judgment

1. State of Madras Vs. V.G. Row (1952)

The case addressed that any restriction on a fundamental right must be “reasonable” in purpose and extent, which in this case was Article 19(1)(c) (freedom of association). CJ Sastri seeks a balance, requiring the courts to consider the nature of the right, the legislative aim, the urgency of the evil, and the proportionality of the restriction. This case foreshadows the modern proportionality test by linking the restriction’s aim to its impact and invalidating arbitrary limitations. Even though the Doctrine of Proportionality was not mentioned in the case, it still laid the foundation for the doctrine to stand on.

2. Om Kumar Vs. Union of India (2001)

The case addressed the formal recognition of the Doctrine of Proportionality in Indian Law, but it simultaneously confined its use and limited its scope. The case was argued on the disparity of punishment as disproportionate and arbitrary under Article 14. The Court held that the doctrine was standard in cases that involve fundamental rights or discrimination, but also reiterated that where an administrative action (like the disciplinary order in the present case), which is reviewed only on the deferential Wednesbury standard, can be challenged as “arbitrary” under Article 14. The Court also held that unless the penalty “shocks the conscience,” it can’t be argued as unreasonable and upheld the prior punishment, as the Appellant’s “censure” did not meet this standard. (CHECK)

3. J. K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India (2017)

The case was marked as a landmark case not only for the Doctrine of Proportionality but also for the Right to Privacy, which was upheld as a fundamental right intrinsic to Articles 14, 19, and 21, and was argued concerning restrictions imposed by the State. The Court held that any restriction on privacy by the State must meet the structured test of legality, legitimate aim, necessity, and proportionality as outlined in the Doctrine of Proportionality to ensure the measures taken by the State are necessary and not unreasonable. This case decision enhances the doctrine placed in India’s rights jurisprudence, as well as setting a bar or standard for evaluating any future laws.

Limitations of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Proportionality promotes and enhances fairness, as well as strengthens the constitutional review. It is still not free from criticism, just like other doctrines. The doctrine is designed in a way that it requires the judges to balance the state’s objectives against individual rights to determine whether a restriction is “reasonable” or “necessary,” which often involves room for subjective and inconsistent assessments, making the outcome heavily dependent on the judicial discretion. The criticism also points out that the “least restrictive means” test has often proven to be difficult in practical application, as it requires courts to assess hypothetical alternatives and possibilities that may not have been considered or were beyond their institutional competence. Critics also highlight that proportionality reviews can prolong litigation and create uncertainty, since each restriction must be examined multiple times. Even so, despite all these criticisms and limitations, the Doctrine of Proportionality continues to serve as a powerful instrument and an essential judicial tool against disproportionate and arbitrary restrictions on rights.

Relevant Legal Principles

The Doctrine of Proportionality, though, is considered a part of the Constitution, but it is not limited to it. The doctrine has been applied not only to constitutional or administrative issues, but also to criminal issues. In criminal matters, the doctrine is used to determine whether the use of force is reasonable (in cases like self-defense) or the punishment for the offences is fair. And as for its constitutional foundation, the doctrine draws its inspiration from Articles 14, 19, and 21 (Golden Triangle) of the Indian Constitution, 1950, to safeguard liberty, equity, and personal freedom while being subject to reasonable restriction in public interest, order, security, and welfare. 

The doctrine provides a structured four-part test, which the Courts employ to measure whether the benefits outweigh the harm to rights, and follows a balancing mechanism that ensures the restrictions are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or excessive but rather fair, balanced, and justified in their scope and application. It also offers the feature of judicial review that ensures proportionality functions to examine both legislative and administrative measures, and ensures fairness between individual rights and state interests.

Conclusion 

The Doctrine of Proportionality stands as a wall to protect individual rights and freedoms against any state’s unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjust restrictions. This adopted doctrine, which offers the Indian Courts a structured four-part test, has put us with the global jurisprudence in providing clarity and consistency in balancing legitimate state objectives with individual rights. While the doctrine is criticized in various ways, however, it heavily outweighs the product or the result of this doctrine in its practical application for fairness, proportionate, and reasonable action, as well as demanding justification for every restriction to ensure that it is not excessive, but a reasonable restriction on their individual rights.

References 

1. Wednesbury Principle 
2. SCC Online
3. Manupatra
4. Modern Dental College V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016, 2016 (7) SCC 353
5. State of Madras Vs. V.G. Row, 1952, AIR 1952 SUPREME COURT 1969
6. Om Kumar Vs. Union of India, 2001, 2001 (2) SCC 386
7. J. K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, 2017, 2017 (10) SCC 1
8. Indian kanoon

Written by Abhinav Sharma, an Intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.