proportionality

Proportionality asks whether the State has used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Indian courts apply a four-part test, set out in Modern Dental College and applied in Puttaswamy: the measure must have a legitimate aim; it must be rationally connected to that aim; there must be no less restrictive but equally effective alternative (necessity); and its benefit must be in proper balance with the harm to the right.

In administrative law, proportionality is also used to review punishment imposed on employees: a penalty so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience can be set aside. It is stricter than Wednesbury unreasonableness, and courts now apply it mainly where fundamental rights are involved.

Example

Applying proportionality, the Court asked whether a less intrusive measure could have achieved the same aim without such a deep invasion of privacy.

In Indian law

• Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 INSC 267: four-part proportionality test
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017 INSC 801: proportionality for restrictions on privacy

See also

Wednesbury unreasonableness · reasonable restrictions · judicial review · right to privacy

Read more in the study notes

• Promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and proportionality (Administrative Law)
• Administrative law: meaning, nature, scope, growth and sources (Administrative Law)
• Administrative discretion and its judicial review (Administrative Law)
• Penal provisions for dishonour of cheques (ss.138-148) and the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (Banking Law)
• Estoppel (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)
• Penalties, leniency, settlements and commitments under the Competition Act (Competition Law)