The doctrine of proportionality is applicable in cases where rights are violated by administrative action and the courts scrutinize administrative conduct specifically and go to court. Issue about the accuracy of the authority’s choices.

The ordinary sense of proportionality is that it should not be more extreme than it should be to achieve the desired results. It means you cannot use a canon to fire a sparrow. This philosophy, in other words, seeks to balance means with ends.

Irrationality as a ground and legitimate expectation to challenge any decision was developed by the Court in Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury, later to be known as the “Wednesbury test” to determine ‘irrationality’ of an administrative action decision of the administrative authority shall be deemed to be irrational.

• if it is beyond the authority of law,
• if it is not based on evidence,
• if it is based on irrelevant consideration,
• if it is so absurd in its violation of logic or established moral standards that no reasonable person may make such a decision on the facts and circumstances in question.

In other words, it is so ridiculous that no reasonable person would ever believe that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the government. In a practical sense, it is the use of the doctrine.

The doctrine of proportionality is a legal principle that states that the actions or measures taken by a public authority must be proportionate to the objective pursued. In other words, the authority should not use more force or impose more restrictions than necessary to achieve a legitimate goal.

The doctrine of proportionality is often applied in the fields of human rights, constitutional law, international law, and criminal law. For example, the European Court of Human Rights uses the doctrine of proportionality to assess whether the interference of a state with the rights and freedoms of individuals is justified and reasonable.

The doctrine of proportionality has four main components:

• Suitability: The measure must be suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective.
• Necessity: The measure must be necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective. There must be no less restrictive alternative available.
• Proportionality in the strict sense: The measure must be proportional or balanced in relation to the objective. The benefits of the measure must outweigh the costs or harm to the rights and interests of the affected parties.
• Fair balance: The measure must strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the individual rights of the persons concerned. The measure must not impose an excessive or disproportionate burden on individuals.

The theory of proportionality is applicable in cases where human freedoms are violated by administrative action. In such a case, the courts scrutinize administrative conduct specifically and go to court about the accuracy of the authority’s choices. Adverse effects on the right would therefore be weighed by the courts and the purpose sought to be accomplished, where the issue of the quantity of penalty levied by the regulatory authority is concerned, would not be subject to strict scrutiny. Courts follow the idea that while the quantity of punishment is beyond the regulatory authority’s control, it is important to prevent arbitrariness.

This concept can be called the’ deference concept, where the court shows consideration for the regulatory authority’s option except when the option is manifestly excessive.

When evaluating an administrative action on the grounds of proportionality Courts typically consider two issues, namely:

1. Whether the relative merits of specific objectives or interests have been properly weighed and equally balanced?

2. Whether the action under review was, in the circumstances, excessively restrictive or inflicted an unnecessary burden?

In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham  (1997) 7 SCC 463, the Supreme Court held that rule of proportionality is fully applicable in constitutional adjudication where the court has to decide on the reasonableness of a restriction on the exercise of fundamental rights. However, its application in the field of administrative law is still in an evolving stage. At the present, the doctrine is not available in administrative law in the sense that the court cannot go into the question of choice made and priority fixed by the administrator.

Om Kumar v Union of India (2001): This case concerned the fundamental right to equality and the power of judicial review. Om Kumar and other employees of the public sector undertakings challenged the government’s decision to reduce their salaries and allowances as part of a financial restructuring plan. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to equality, as it was not proportionate to the objective of reviving the public sector undertakings. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective, as it did not take into account the performance and efficiency of the employees. The court also found that the government’s decision was not necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective, as there were other less drastic measures available, such as reducing the managerial staff, improving the productivity, and enhancing the competitiveness. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportional or balanced in relation to the objective, as it imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on the employees, who were already underpaid and overworked.

State of Maharashtra v Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008): This case concerned the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the power of preventive detention. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and other film producers and distributors challenged the government’s decision to detain them under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), alleging that they had links with the underworld and were involved in financing terrorist activities. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression, as it was not proportionate to the objective of preventing terrorism. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not rationally connected to the objective, as it did not have any credible evidence or material to support the allegations against the detainees. The court also found that the government’s decision was not minimally impairing, as it used the most drastic and draconian measure of preventive detention, without exhausting the other legal remedies available, such as investigation, prosecution, and trial. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportionate in its effects, as it caused severe and irreparable harm to the detainees’ reputation, livelihood, and liberty.

• Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020): This case concerned the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to access the internet. Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of Kashmir Times, and other petitioners challenged the government’s decision to impose a complete shutdown of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir, following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the state. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to access the internet, as it was not proportionate to the objective of maintaining public order and national security. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective, as it was not based on any specific threat or exigency, but on a general apprehension of violence. The court also found that the government’s decision was not necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective, as there were other less restrictive measures available, such as blocking specific websites, imposing reasonable restrictions on the duration and area of the shutdown, and providing periodic review and oversight. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportional or balanced in relation to the objective, as it caused immense and indiscriminate hardship to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who were deprived of their fundamental rights, essential services, and economic opportunities.