Back to Legal Insights & Articles
Litigation
Achint Kumar, AoRJuly 15, 20267 min read
Akros Legal Publication

Executive Summary

The doctrine of proportionality has emerged as a cornerstone of Indian administrative law under Article 226 and Article 32. This article analyzes how courts balance state policy against fundamental rights.

1. Shift from Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Proportionality

Historically, Indian courts reviewed administrative action through the narrow lens of 'Wednesbury unreasonableness'. Modern constitutional jurisprudence has shifted toward the structured proportionality test, requiring the State to demonstrate that restrictive measures are suitable, necessary, and balanced.

The Supreme Court's decisions in K.S. Puttaswamy and subsequent constitutional bench judgments have firmly entrenched proportionality as the standard of review for fundamental rights infringements.

2. Practical Application in Commercial Writs & Tenders

In statutory tender disputes and regulatory penalty challenges, writ courts apply proportionality to strike down disproportionate blacklisting orders, arbitrary license cancellations, and excessive monetary penalties imposed by state instrumentalities.

Key Practice Takeaways

State action impairing rights must be the least restrictive means available.
Blacklisting orders and penalty actions must conform strictly to natural justice and proportionality.
Constitutional writs under Art. 226 offer potent remedies against administrative overreach.
Direct Legal Consultation

Need tailored advice or legal representation on issues discussed in this commentary? Connect directly with our senior partners and advocates.