Doc Of Prop

Table of Contents

Serial Content Page No.

No.
1 Introduction 4

2 Evolution of Doctrine Of Proportionality 5

3 Application in India 6

4 Conclusion 8

5 Bibliography 9

1
INTRODUCTION

In today’s world the administrative bodies have seen a huge expansion as its need has increased
along with it there has been the expansion of its power and jurisdiction. And with the expansion
of these bodies there has emerged a threat of misuse of power by administrative bodies. In
response to this the courts have evolved various principles like illegality, irrationality,
procedural impropriety and proportionality which are used to limit administrative actions
which may be contrary to law, improper, unreasonable or irrational, by exercising power of
judicial review. The doctrine of proportionality is one of these principles used by courts to curb
misuse of power.

The Doctrine of Proportionality relates to the principle of interpretation of statutory provisions

while maintaining fairness and justice. The doctrine ordains that administrative measures must
not be more drastic than is necessary for attaining the desired result 1. Further it envisages that
a public authority must maintain a sense of proportion between required objective and the
means that are employed to achieve such objective, so that the action infringes on the individual
rights to the minimum extent. It is a principle where courts would examine priorities and
processes of the administration for reaching or recalling a decision2. It is a course of action
which could have been reasonably followed and should not be excessive. Doctrine of
proportionality signifies that administrative action should not be more drastic than it ought to
be for obtaining desired result. “Proportionality can be described as a principle where the court
is concerned with the way in which the administration has ordered his priorities; the very
essence of decision-making consists, surely, in the attribution of relative importance to the
factors in the case. This is precisely what proportionality is about.3”

1
C. K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law pg. 338 (Eastern Book Company 6 th Edn 2018)
2
I. P. Massey, Administrative Law pg. 379 (Eastern Book Company 9 th Edn. 2018)
3
U.O.I. v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, 473.

2
The administrative action ought to bear a reasonable relationship to the general purpose for
which the power has been conferred upon the body. The implication of the principle of
proportionality is that the court will weigh for itself the advantages and disadvantages of an
administrative action. Only if the balance is advantageous, will the court hold the
administrative action to be valid. The principle of proportionality envisages that an
administrative action should be quashed it was disproportionate to the mischief at which it was
aimed.

In India Fundamental Rights form a part of the Indian Constitution, therefore, courts have
always used this doctrine of proportionality in judging the reasonableness of a restriction on
the exercise of fundamental rights4. This doctrine has always stood as a shield against the
administrative action affecting fundamental freedoms of individuals. By proportionality it is
meant that while regulating exercises of fundamental rights, the appropriate and the least
restrictive choice of measuring needs to be made by the legislature or the administrator so as
to achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of administrative order, as the case may
be. The legislature and the administrative authority are given an area of discretion or a range
of choice but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is for the
court to decide.

EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY

The beginning of Doctrine of Proportionality can be traced down to the Associated Provincial
Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation case in England which set down the standard of
unreasonableness for public body decisions which bring them under purview of judicial review.
This came to be known as Wednesbury reasonableness. The court expressed three grounds for
intervention. The test proposed had three grounds firstly in making the decision, factors had
been taken into account that ought not to have been taken into account, secondly that the factors
that ought to have been taken into account were not, or lastly the decision was so unreasonable
that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.

4
I. P. Massey, Administrative Law pg. 381 (Eastern Book Company 9th Edn. 2018)

3
In India, the courts apply the principle of proportionality in a very limited sense compared to
Europe. The principle is applied as an aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution, viz., an arbitrary
administrative action is hit by Article 14. Therefore, where administration action is challenged
as arbitrary under Article 14. The Supreme Court has also expressed that if the administrative
action is arbitrary, it could be struck down under Article 14. Arbitrary action by an
administrator is described as one that is irrational and unreasonable. Accordingly, a very
restrictive version of proportionality is applied in the area of punishments imposed by
administrative authorities.
In India the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority is a matter of discretion
of the disciplinary authority, provided that the punishment has to be reasonable because of the
constraints of Article 14. Thus, the court can thus decide upon the proportionality of the
punishment when it is strikingly disproportionate.

APPLICATION IN INDIA

The application of this principle can be seen in India with respect to cases involving
fundamental rights. In the cases which do not involve fundamental freedoms, the role of our
courts in administrative law is very restrictive and while applying Wednesbury principles to
test the validity of executive action or of administrative action taken in exercise. The choice of
the option available is for the authority. The courts also do not substitute the view as to what is
reasonable. “The position in India, in administrative law is that where no fundamental freedoms
as aforesaid are involved, courts/tribunals will oinly play a secondary role, while the primary
judgement as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or administrative authority. The
secondary judgement of the court is to be based on Wednesbury and CCSU principles to if the
executive or administrative authority has reasonably arrived at his descion as a primary
authority.5”

In India this doctrine is applied in the situations where an administrative action invades
fundamental rights and even here the courts only balance the adverse effects on the rights and
objects sought to be achieved. This doctrine is also applied where a question of quantum of

5
I. P. Massey, Administrative Law pg. 386-387 (Eastern Book Company 9th Edn. 2018)

4
punishment imposed by the administrative authority is involved. Courts follow the principle
that though the decision regarding quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative authority but arbitrariness must be avoided.

One of the earliest decisions on judicial review in administrative law was Ranjit Thakur case6
where the court observed that: “The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of
judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive
province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous
defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and
perversity are recognized grounds for judicial review.” The Apex Court had applied the
doctrine, quashing the dismissal from service and sentence of imprisonment awarded.
In the Om Kumar case7, Supreme Court observed that proportionality was held to mean
whether while regulating the exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least restrictive
choice for measures had been adopted by the legislature or executive so as to achieve their
respective objective and that it was for the Courts to decide whether the choice made infringed
the rights in an unnecessary manner.

In Coimbatore Distt. Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn.8 the court expressed that the
doctrine of proportionality includes balancing and necessity tests. Balancing test permits
scrutiny of punishments on infringement of right, interests, and relevant considerations. The
necessity test requires infringement of fundamental rights to least alternative. In Hind
Construction Ltd. v. Workmen9, the Supreme applied the doctrine of proportionality and held
that an employer could not impose a harsh punishment like dismissing a permanent employee
when he remained absent from duty treating only a particular day as a holiday.

In Sardar Singh v. Union of India,10 a man serving in the Indian army had purchased eleven
bottles of rum from army canteen though he was entitled to only four bottles and was thus
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and was also dismissed from
service by the Army court. The Supreme Court observed that the sentence awarded to the
appellant is wholly disproportionate to the offence committed and expressed that there was an

6
Ranjit Thakur v. U.O.I. (1987) SC 611, 620
7
Om Kumar v. Union of India (SLP civil 1993)
8
Coimbatore Distt. Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn.(2007) 4 SCC 669
9
Hind Construction Ltd. v. Workmen AIR 1965 SC 917
10
Sardar Singh v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 213

5
element of arbitrariness in awarding these severe punishments. The Apex Court set aside the
punishment of three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal and remanded the matter to
the court martial who shall award any of the lesser punishments.

The application of principle of proportionality is inherent in cases of punishments. This is also

the basis of awarding punishments in the case of criminal law. In Union of India v.
Rajesh,11 134 posts of constables were to be filled up for which written test and viva were held.
As a result of allegations of favouritism and nepotism in conducting the physical efficiency
test, the entire selection list was cancelled. This was challenged in the High Court which
observed that there were only 31 specific cases of irregularities. Applying the principle of
proportionality the Apex Court observed that the “competent authority completely misdirected
itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections
wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in
excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision
to be irrational”.

CONCLUSION

The Courts in India enjoy the power of judicial review and this is accepted as one of the basic
features of our Constitution. This doctrine is one of the principles used by the Court to apply
its power of judicial review. The Doctrine of Proportionality is based on the idea that one must
use only such amount of force as necessary to achieve a goal. This doctrine is still used by the
courts in a limited manner. It can also be observed that the courts act as secondary means to
review the action of administrative functions. Except in few cases the judiciary has not yet
interfered with the quantum of punishment and considers it as a discretionary matter for the
executive. This shows the balancing of powers and functions between judiciary and the
executive in a harmonious manner.

This doctrine is a highly required doctrine which has established itself in a proper manner and
is required to curb the actions of administrative bodies so that they act in a proportionate
manner with a certain sense of reasonability and not act in any arbitrary manner. Though the
court has been restrictive in the use of this doctrine but it is necessary to understand that this

11
Union of India v. Rajesh (2003) 7 SCC 285.

6
doctrine is necessary to regulate the position of administrative bodies and to prevent them form
misusing the power and authority provided to them.

Bibliography –

1. C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company 6th Edn. 2018)
2. I. P. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company 9th Edn. 2018)
3. Wikipedia.com
4. racolblegal.com
5. Shodhganga
6. IndiaKanoon.org
7. Legalbites.in
8. Lawteacher.net
9. Legalbites.in