Our Blogs

Constitutional Law | July 15, 2025

The Doctrine of Proportionality in  Indian Constitutional Law and its  Application in Fundamental Rights  Cases

Introduction 

The doctrine of proportionality has emerged as a cornerstone in the field of constitutional  adjudication in India. Rooted in European legal traditions and gradually integrated into  Indian jurisprudence, this doctrine offers a structured framework for courts to assess  whether a restriction on fundamental rights is justified. Its essence lies in maintaining a  balance between individual rights and the objectives pursued by the State. As India  evolves both socially and technologically, the judiciary's adoption of the proportionality  principle has gained prominence in assessing State action across domains such as  privacy, education, economic regulation, and national security. This paper aims to  explore the evolution, structure, and application of the doctrine of proportionality in  Indian constitutional law, particularly in the context of fundamental rights. It analyzes  key Supreme Court judgments and reflects on how proportionality serves as a safeguard  against arbitrary and excessive State power. 

Legal Framework 

Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the doctrine of  proportionality, the principle finds implicit recognition through judicial interpretation,  particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21. 

• Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary State action. • Article 19 protects various freedoms such as speech, movement, and profession, subject  to reasonable restrictions. 

• Article 21 assures protection of life and personal liberty, interpreted expansively since  the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). 

Proportionality acts as a tool for courts to ensure that any infringement upon these rights  is measured, necessary, and justified. The doctrine originated in German administrative  law and was adopted by European courts before being absorbed into Indian jurisprudence  through judicial innovation. 

Analysis 

Issue 

To what extent does the doctrine of proportionality guide Indian constitutional courts in  assessing the validity of State action that restricts fundamental rights, and how effectively  has it been implemented in key constitutional cases?

Rule 

The proportionality test has evolved through jurisprudence and involves four core  components, especially as clarified in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): 1. Legitimate Aim: The restriction must serve a constitutionally permissible purpose. 2. Rational Connection: The measure must be logically connected to the objective. 3. Necessity: There should be no less restrictive alternative available. 4. Balancing: The benefits of the restriction must outweigh the harm caused to individual  rights. 

This framework is now routinely applied to assess whether the State has justifiably  limited fundamental freedoms. 

Application 

The following landmark cases demonstrate how the doctrine of proportionality has been  interpreted and applied by the Indian judiciary in diverse contexts: 

1. Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001): 

This was a turning point where the Supreme Court explicitly introduced the  proportionality principle in administrative law. The Court distinguished between  legislative and administrative action, holding that proportionality would apply primarily  to the latter. While arbitrariness remained the test for legislation, the decision emphasized  that administrative decisions must not be excessive and should be suitable, necessary, and  balanced. 

2. Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016): In this case, the Court upheld the state's right to regulate private professional educational  institutions. It used the proportionality test to evaluate whether such regulation infringed  upon the institutions’ autonomy under Article 19(1)(g). The Court ruled that the  regulatory framework served the public interest of ensuring quality and transparency in  education and that the interference was justified and not excessive. 

3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) - Privacy Judgment: 

A nine-judge constitutional bench declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under  Article 21. The Court held that any restriction on privacy must meet the proportionality  standard. This judgment laid the doctrinal foundation for future cases involving personal  liberty, autonomy, and data protection. 

4. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) - Aadhaar Judgment: 

In the follow-up Aadhaar verdict, the Court applied the proportionality test to determine  the validity of the Aadhaar scheme. While the Court upheld the scheme for its legitimate  aim of efficient service delivery, it struck down provisions allowing private access to 

Aadhaar data and made the scheme voluntary for certain services, illustrating a nuanced  application of the test. 

5. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): 

Challenging the internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir, the Court applied the  proportionality test and held that such restrictions must be necessary, temporary, and  must be subject to periodic review. The judgment stressed that freedom of expression and  access to information are constitutionally protected, and any restriction on them must  pass the proportionality scrutiny. 

6. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020): 

Here, the Supreme Court struck down an RBI circular banning financial services to  cryptocurrency entities. The Court held that the restriction lacked sufficient empirical  justification and was disproportionate to the goal of protecting financial stability. It  reaffirmed the principle that regulatory actions impacting Article 19(1)(g) must meet  proportionality standards. 

These cases reflect the progressive evolution of proportionality in Indian constitutional  law, establishing it as a cornerstone of rights adjudication. The test has brought in  predictability and transparency in judicial review, ensuring that State action is fair,  rational, and rights-respecting. 

Conclusion 

The doctrine of proportionality has become an indispensable tool in Indian constitutional  adjudication. By requiring that restrictions on fundamental rights must pursue legitimate  aims, be logically connected to their objectives, be the least restrictive means available,  and balance public interest with individual harm, the doctrine ensures that State power is  exercised within constitutional bounds. From administrative decisions to large-scale  legislative frameworks like Aadhaar, courts have used this doctrine to uphold the spirit of  constitutionalism. While concerns remain about judicial overreach, the proportionality  standard provides a principled method for reconciling individual freedoms with societal  needs. As emerging issues such as surveillance, digital privacy, and artificial intelligence  come to the fore, the doctrine’s relevance will only grow, reinforcing its status as a pillar  of constitutional governance. 

References 

• Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386. 

• Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353. • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy Judgment), (2017) 10 SCC 1.

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Judgment), (2019) 1 SCC 1. • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637. 

• Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI, (2020) 10 SCC 274. • Upendra Baxi, 'Proportionality in Indian Constitutional Law', Indian Law Review,  2021. 

• Tarunabh Khaitan, 'A Theory of Discrimination Law', Oxford University Press, 2015.