Doctrine of Proportionality in Indian Constitutional Adjudication
In the expanding universe of constitutional interpretation, few doctrines have gained as much ground in recent years as the doctrine of proportionality. Once a foreign transplant rooted in European legal traditions, proportionality has now become central to how Indian courts assess the validity of state actions that impinge upon individual rights. In the context of Fundamental Rights and Administrative Law, the doctrine acts as a necessary bridge between liberty and governance, ensuring that state power does not overreach its constitutional limits.
At its core, proportionality is a method of judicial review. It requires that every state action restricting a right must be based on a legitimate aim, be suitable to achieve that aim, necessary in the absence of a less restrictive alternative, and balanced so that the harm to the right is not disproportionate to the public benefit achieved.
This four-pronged test has proven vital in navigating the complex interplay between public interest and individual freedoms.
While India’s early constitutional jurisprudence largely relied on the more deferential “reasonableness” test, the formal entry of proportionality into Indian law came with Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001), particularly in administrative decisions. But it was in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) and later in the Right to Privacy judgment (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) that the doctrine took firm root in constitutional adjudication. In these cases, the Supreme Court held that any encroachment on fundamental rights must be narrowly tailored, well-justified, and proportionate to the goal sought to be achieved.
More recently, the Court reaffirmed this doctrine in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), holding that the indefinite suspension of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir lacked proportional justification. The judgment signaled the Court’s growing willingness to evaluate the necessity and duration of state-imposed restrictions, particularly in matters affecting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
In 2025, the relevance of the doctrine continues to grow amid India’s shifting legal and political environment. A series of preventive detention cases, most notably Imtiyaz Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, have highlighted concerns about vague executive reasoning and disproportionate detentions under the pretext of maintaining public order. The courts have been urged to demand greater specificity and proportional justification for such restrictions on personal liberty under Article 21.
Likewise, emerging challenges to sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 reveal the importance of proportionality in legislative design. Provisions concerning digital misinformation, mob lynching, and “deemed culpability” are under judicial review for potentially violating the principle by criminalizing acts without clear mental elements or narrow tailoring. Critics argue that such provisions may punish disproportionately, affecting innocent actors and chilling free expression.
Even in the realm of administrative law, courts have used proportionality to question excessive penalties, blanket restrictions, and overbroad regulations. For example, in 2024, the Gujarat High Court applied the doctrine to strike down commercial zoning rules that imposed heavy burdens on traders without sufficient justification.
Yet, the application of proportionality is not without challenges. Unlike the reasonableness test, which often allows for judicial restraint, proportionality requires courts to engage in deep factual and legal inquiry, including examination of alternative policies. This demands judicial expertise, time, and sensitivity—something not always uniformly available across forums. Moreover, the lack of statutory embedding of the doctrine in many Indian laws forces judges to imply it from constitutional principles, which sometimes invites criticism of judicial overreach.
Despite these limitations, the doctrine of proportionality today stands as one of the most vital constitutional tools in the hands of the judiciary. In a democracy where state powers expand rapidly in the name of security, public order, and morality, proportionality serves as a bulwark against arbitrariness and excessive action.
At a time when digital surveillance, preventive policing, and new criminal statutes test the limits of civil liberty, the courts must not hesitate to invoke this doctrine robustly. Proportionality is not just a test of legality—it is a test of constitutional character.
The need of the hour is for courts to apply the doctrine consistently, governments to respect its boundaries, and lawmakers to recognize its constitutional necessity. In the balance it seeks to maintain between rights and duties, proportionality reminds us that justice is not just about rule—it is about reason.
