DAW 19th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

DAW 19th February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

Question

Discuss the relevance of the doctrine of proportionality in adjudicating conflicts between fundamental rights. (10 marks).

Model Answer

Approach:

  • Introduction (2–3 lines)

  • Briefly introduce the inevitability of conflicts between fundamental rights in a constitutional democracy and mention the doctrine of proportionality as a judicial tool evolved to resolve such conflicts.

  • Body

  • Explain the concept and constitutional basis of the doctrine of proportionality.

  • Outline the structured proportionality test as laid down by the Supreme Court.

  • Discuss its relevance in adjudicating conflicts between fundamental rights, highlighting balancing of co-equal rights, restraint on State power, rights-oriented adjudication, and transparency. Discuss contemporary relevance of the doctrine.

  • Mention some limitations of the doctrine.

  • Briefly suggest a way forward to strengthen its application.

  • Conclusion

  • Conclude by emphasising the central role of proportionality in preserving constitutional balance, individual dignity, and democratic accountability in an increasingly complex governance landscape.

Introduction In a constitutional democracy, conflicts between fundamental rights are inevitable. The State often seeks to balance competing claims such as privacy and transparency, liberty and security, or free speech and public order. The doctrine of proportionality has emerged as a critical judicial tool to resolve these tensions in a principled manner. Though not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, proportionality has been judicially developed to ensure that restrictions on fundamental rights are reasonable, necessary, and non-excessive, thereby preventing arbitrary State action while preserving constitutional balance. Body Concept and Constitutional Basis In Supreme Court of India v. G. Ganayutham, proportionality was identified as the appropriate standard for reviewing administrative action affecting fundamental rights. The principle was subsequently affirmed at the constitutional level in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Court described proportionality as an inherent component of Article 19 adjudication. The judgment framed proportionality as a balancing exercise between the individual’s fundamental freedom and the regulatory interests of the State. The doctrine of proportionality requires that any restriction on a fundamental right must be commensurate with the objective sought to be achieved. In Indian constitutional law, it derives implicit legitimacy from:

  • Article 14, which guards against arbitrariness,

  • Article 19, which permits only reasonable restrictions on freedoms, and

  • Article 21, which post-Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) demands fairness, reasonableness, and due process in laws affecting life and liberty.

Structure of the Proportionality Test The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) articulated a structured four-pronged test to bring clarity, predictability, and transparency to judicial reasoning:

  • Legitimate Aim – The State action must pursue a constitutionally permissible objective.

  • Rational Connection – The measure must have a logical nexus with the objective.

  • Necessity – There must be no equally effective but less restrictive alternative.

  • Balancing – The benefit to public interest must outweigh the harm to individual rights.

Relevance in Adjudicating Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights

  • Balancing Co-equal Fundamental Rights

  • Fundamental rights are not absolute or hierarchically ordered.

  • Proportionality enables courts to reconcile competing rights without treating any one right as automatically superior.

  • Example, conflicts between the right to privacy (Article 21) and the right to information and free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) are resolved through contextual balancing rather than rigid prioritisation.

  • Check on Arbitrary and Excessive State Power

  • Proportionality restrains the State from adopting blanket or overbroad measures.

  • It requires the government to justify why a restriction is needed and why it must be so intrusive, reinforcing the principle of limited government.

  • It prevents blanket bans instead of targeted regulation, preventive measures from becoming punitive, emergency powers from turning permanent.

  • Rights-Oriented Adjudication

  • By focusing on the impact of State action on individual autonomy and dignity, proportionality strengthens the rights-based character of constitutional governance.

  • This has been especially significant in cases involving surveillance, internet shutdowns, preventive detention, and data protection.

  • Proportionality ensures that constitutional adjudication remains citizen-centric rather than State-centric.

  • Enhancing Transparency and Reasoned Governance

  • Proportionality requires the State to place material evidence, data, and justifications before the court.

  • This promotes transparency in executive decision-making, accountability of public authorities, predictability and consistency in constitutional adjudication.

  • It also curbs unguided discretion by making restrictions reviewable and reasoned.

Judicial Application and Contemporary Significance

  • In Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001), proportionality was introduced as a test against excessive administrative action.

  • In Modern Dental College v. State of MP (2016), the Court balanced institutional autonomy with public interest in education.

  • In K.S. Puttaswamy (2017 & 2018), proportionality became the governing standard for privacy restrictions, leading to partial validation and partial invalidation of the Aadhaar framework.

  • In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Court held that internet shutdowns must be necessary, temporary, and proportionate.

  • Its contemporary relevance is evident in ongoing challenges to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, where courts are required to balance privacy with transparency and free speech in the digital age.

Limitations of the Doctrine

  • Judicial Subjectivity: Balancing exercises may vary depending on judicial interpretation, leading to inconsistent outcomes.

  • Risk of Judicial Overreach: Excessive scrutiny may draw courts into policy domains better suited for legislative judgment.

  • Dependence on Executive Data: Effective proportionality review requires transparency and empirical justification from the State, which is not always forthcoming.

Way Forward

  • Codification of Standards: Clear legislative articulation of safeguards and review mechanisms can reduce reliance on ad hoc judicial balancing.

  • Strengthening Reasoned Decision-Making: The State must provide detailed justifications for rights-restricting measures to enable meaningful proportionality review.

  • Institutional Independence: Bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers must be insulated from executive dominance to uphold proportionality in practice.

  • Capacity Building of Judiciary: Continuous engagement with comparative constitutional jurisprudence can improve consistency in applying the doctrine.

Conclusion The doctrine of proportionality has become indispensable in adjudicating conflicts between fundamental rights in India. By providing a structured and principled framework, it enables courts to balance liberty with legitimate State interests while preventing arbitrariness and excess. As governance becomes increasingly data-driven and rights conflicts intensify in the digital era, proportionality will remain central to preserving constitutionalism, human dignity, and democratic accountability.