A Project Work Of

Administrative Law
On

‘THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY & IT’S CONTEMPORARY

RELEVANCE IN INDIA’

SUBMITTED TO: Mrs. ADITI SINGH

FACULTY OF: - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

SUBMITTED BY: SHUBHANKAR THAKUR

SECTION C
ROLL NO.149

SUBMITTED ON:
15th NOVEMBER, 2019

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

i
 Declaration

I, Shubhankar Thakur, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, ‘DOCTRINE OF
PROPORTIONALITY & IT’S CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE IN INDIA’ submitted to
H.N.L.U., Raipur is record of an original work done by me.

Shubhankar Thakur

Roll No. 149

Section C

Batch XIII

ii
 Acknowledgements

First and Foremost, I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to
my teacher Ms. Aditi Singh (Faculty of Administrative Law) for her exemplary guidance and
encouragement throughout the course of this project. The blessing help and guidance given by
her time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to IT lab staff and library staff for
their cordial support, valuable information and guidance which helped me in completing this task
efficiently.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement and help
without which this assignment would not be possible.

Shubhankar Thakur
Roll No. 149
Section C

iii
 Contents

Serial Topic Page No.

No.

1. Declaration ii

2.
Acknowledgment iii

4. Chapter-1: Introduction 5

5. Scope & Research Methodology 7

6. EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE OF 9
PROPORTIONALITY

7. Conclusion 19

8. Reference 20

iv
 INTRODUCTION

Judicial review of legislative and executive action has been one of the most important
developments in the field of public law in the last century. Though the concept of judicial
review was developed way back in 1803 in the famous case of Marbury v.Madison1, it found
wide application only in the later periods of the 20th Century, when in the aftermath of the
World War II, democracy came to be the governing political principle in most parts of the
world. Since then the scope and ambit of judicial review has been one of the central themes of
discussion in the branch of administrative law.

Proportionality is one of the most important grounds for judicial review. It has been a ground for
many years and has evolved from the concept of unreasonableness. The concept of
proportionality has been developed more as a general principle of law by the judges over the
years. This doctrine of proportionality is well established and is a broad concept in the European
administrative law.

In modern days authorities both statutory and governmental enjoy a wide range of discretionary
powers. This power is however, fettered by restraints. It is to be exercised in public interest and
for the public good. The wide range of authorities and officers conferred with discretion adds to
the intensity of the problem in as much as quite frequently discretionary powers are wrongly
exercised or otherwise abused. In early times, the courts have been overseeing the exercise of
discretionary powers by way of judicial review. New developments in administration made the
Courts to adopt new techniques to discipline the exercise of administrative discretion but the
judiciary was very cautious in exercising its power of judicial review.

In the test of Proportionality the “courts will quash exercise of discretionary powers in which
there is no reasonable relation between the objective which is sought to be achieved and the
means used to that end, or where punishments imposed by administrative bodies or inferior

1
5 US 137 (1803)

v
courts are wholly out of proportion to the relevant misconduct”.2 So the administrative action
which arbitrarily discriminates will be quashed by the court. The implication of the principle of
proportionality is that the court will weigh for itself the advantages and disadvantages of an
administrative action and such an action will be upheld as valid if and only if the balance is
advantages. If this action is disproportionate to the mischief then it will be quashed.

2
www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/proportionality-as-a-ground-of-judicial-review-
constitutional-law-essay.php#ftn4

vi
Scope and Objectives
The objective of this project is to get an overview of doctrine of proportionality which is one of
the most important grounds for judicial review and to analyze its impacts in contemporary times.
It postulates that the nature and extent of the State’s interference with the exercise of a right must
be proportionate to the goal it seeks to achieve. This principle of proportionality is a means to
achieve a given end or objective, it should not be unreasonable in its reciprocal relationships.
Public authority must maintain a sense of proportion between his particular goals and the means
he employs to achieve those goals.

Research Methodology

The major sources of literature have been the articles from related websites, research papers of
academicians.
This is a doctrinal research which is descriptive and analytical in nature. Footnotes have been
provided wherever needed, to acknowledge the source.

Objectives: The objectives of this project are as follow:

 To study and give and overview on Doctrine of Proportionality and to analyse its impact
on contemporary times.
 To study about the evolution of proportionality
 To discuss with the help of cases its application in India by the courts.

vii
The rapid growth in administrative law has anticipated a threat of misuse and exaggerated use of
the power by administrative authority. The need and necessity to control abuse of discretionary
powers by various administrative authorities, certain principles have been evolved by the courts.
If an administrative action is contrary to law, improper, unreasonable or irrational, a court of law
can interfere with such action by exercising power of judicial review. One of such modes of
exercising power is the doctrine of proportionality.

The Doctrine of Proportionality relates to the principle of interpretation of statutory provisions

maintaining fairness and justice3. It is a mode of restricting the administrative action from being
drastic, when it is used for obtaining desired results.4 The principle of proportionality stricto
sensu means that the application of a given instrument or means to achieve a given end or
objective should not be unreasonable in its reciprocal relationships.5 Further it envisages that a
public authority ought to maintain a sense of proportion between his particular goals and the
means he employs to achieve those goals, so that his action impinges on the individual rights to
the minimum extent to preserve the public interest.

It is a course of action which could have been reasonably followed and should not be excessive.
“Proportionality can be described as a principle where the court is concerned with the way in
which the administration has ordered his priorities; the very essence of decision-making consists,
surely, in the attribution of relative importance to the factors in the case. This is precisely what
proportionality is about.6”

Within municipal law it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit
the crime7. Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed
conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.

3
As observed and concluded by the author.
4
Mubashshir Sarshar , THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY, Accessed on 3/01/2013, Accessed at
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=mubashshir.
5
GAVARA DE CARA, J. C., DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES Y DESARROLLO LEGISLATIVO, 308,
BVerfGE 7, 377; 8, 71; 13, 97; 78, 77; y 79, 29.
6
U.O.I. v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463, 473.
7
Tor-Inge Harbo, “The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law”, European Law Journal, Vol. 16,
No. 2, March 2010, pp. 158–185

viii
In India Fundamental Rights8 form a part of the Indian Constitution, therefore, courts have
always used the doctrine of proportionality in judging the reasonableness of a restriction on the
exercise of fundamental rights. The doctrine has always stands as a shield against the
administrative action affecting fundamental freedoms. By proportionality it is meant that the
question whether, while regulating exercises of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least
restrictive choice of measuring has been made by the legislature or the administrator so as to
achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of administrative order, as the case may be.
Under the principle court will see that the legislature and the administrative authority maintain a
proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may
have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purposes which they were
intended to serve‖. The legislature and the administrative authority are given an area of discretion
or a range of choice but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is
for the court to decide. This is the principle of proportionality.

EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY

The origin of this doctrine may be traced in Persia in nineteenth century, further by Germany9,
France and other European countries. The European Court of Justice at Luxembourg and the
European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg have applied the principle while judging the
validity of administrative action. The Supreme Court has also been applying the principle of
proportionality to legislative actions since 1950. This principle applied when the administrative
action is attacked as discretionary under Article 14 of the constitution. However, where
administrative action is questioned as ‘arbitrary’ under Article 14 then the
Wednesbury’s10 principle applied. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India examined

8
Part III, Constitution of India.
9
Dieter Grimm, “Proportionality in Canadian and German Laws”, 51 U, Toronto L. J, 383,
10
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)1 KB 223; English law case which
set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed
on judicial review. This special sense is accordingly known as Wednesbury unreasonableness.
The court stated three conditions on which it would intervene to correct a bad administrative decision, including on
grounds of its unreasonableness in the special sense later articulated in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister
for the Civil Service[2] by Lord Diplock

ix
whether the classification was based on the intelligible differentia and whether the differentia
had a reasonable nexus with the object of the legislation. It means that the courts were examining
the validity of the difference and the adequacy of the difference. This is again the principle of
proportionality.

In India though, the principle of proportionality in its broad European sense has not so far been
accepted in India. Only a very restrictive version thereof has so far come into play. The reason in
that the broad principle does not accord with the traditions of common-law judicial review. The
European version of proportionality makes the court as the primary reviewer of administrative
action is entrusted to administrative tribunals and not to ordinary courts, and therefore the broad
concept of proportionality can be followed. In common law, the tradition so far has been that the
court does not probe into the merits of an administrative action. This approach comes in the way
of a full-fledged acceptance of the principle of proportionality, for, if accepted, it will turn the
courts into primary reviewer of administrative action.

Accordingly in India, the courts apply the principle of proportionality in a very limited sense.
The principle is applied not as an independent principle by itself as in European administrative
law, but as an aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution, viz., an arbitrary administrative action is
hit by Art. 14. Therefore, where administration action is challenged as arbitrary under Art 14, the
question will be whether administrative order is rational or reasonable‘ as the test to apply is the
Wednesbury test.11 As has been stated by the Supreme Court in Royappa12, if the administrative
action is arbitrary, it could be struck down under Art. 14. Arbitrary action by an administrator is
described as one that is irrational and unreasonable. Accordingly, a very restrictive version of
proportionality is applied in the area of punishments imposed by administrative authorities. The
first proposition in this regard is that the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary
authority on a civil servant for his misconduct in service is a matter of discretion of the
disciplinary authority. The second proposition is that the punishment has to be reasonable
because of the constraints of Art. 14. This means that if the punishment imposed in unreasonable,
Art 14 is infringed. The court can thus decide upon the proportionality of the punishment when it

11
Supra.
12
E. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555

x
is strikingly disproportionate. The court would not interfere with the matter of punishment on
compassionate ground or because it considers the punishment disproportionate. The court would
not interfere only in such extreme cases which on their face show perversity or irrationality. The
Wednesbury test is to be applied in such cases.

xi
APPLICATION IN INDIA

The application of this principle can be seen in India with respect to cases involving fundamental
rights. The case not involving fundamental freedoms, the role of our courts/ tribunals in
administrative law is purely secondary and while applying Wednesbury and CCSU 13principles to
test the validity of executive action or of administrative action taken in exercise of statutory
powers, the courts can only go into the matter as a secondary reviewing court to find out if the
executive or the administrator in their primary roles have arrived at a reasonable decision on the
material before them in the light of Wednesbury and CCSU tests. The choice of the option
available is for the authority. The courts/tribunals cannot substitute the view as to what is
reasonable.
In Hind Construction Ltd. v. Workmen14, the Supreme applied the doctrine of proportionality and
held that an employer could not impose a harsh punishment like dismissing a permanent
employee from job when he remained absent from duty treating a particular day as holiday. In
Ranjit Thakur15 case, The Apex Court had applied the doctrine of proportionality while quashing
the punishment of dismissal from service and sentence of imprisonment awarded by the court
martial under the Army Act. Upholding the contention, following CCSU16 case the court
observed, “The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and
discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should
not be indicative or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock
the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of
proportionality, as a part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even as an aspect
which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court
even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune
from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review”.

13
Council of Civil Services v. Minister of Civil Services, 1985 AC 374
14
AIR 1965 SC 917
15
Ranjit Thakur v. U.O.I. (1987) SC 611, 620
16
Council of Civil Service v. Minister of Civil Services, 1985, AC 374

xii
In Sardar Singh v. Union of India,17 a jawan serving in an Indian Army was granted leave and
while going his home town, he purchased eleven bottles of rum from army canteen though he
was entitled to carry only four bottles. In court martial proceedings, he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months and was also dismissed from service. His petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution was devised by the High Court. The petitioner then approached
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the main submission and perhaps the only
submission if we may say so, in this appeal is that the sentence awarded to the appellant is
wholly disproportionate to the offence committed by him. Court considered the case of Ranjit
Thakur18 in the matter of awarding punishment under the Army Act. Applying these principles to
this case the court observed that there is an element of arbitrariness in awarding these severe
punishments to the appellant.

Jayachandra Reddy J. further said that we are satisfied that an interference is called for and the
matter has to be remanded on the question of awarding any of the lesser punishment.
Accordingly we set aside the punishment of three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal
from service and remand the matter to the court martial which shall award any of the lesser
punishments having due regard to the nature and circumstances of the case and in the light of the
above observation made by us.

In Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy19, the Apex Court had explained the scope and ambit of the
power of judicial review of administrative action relating to the ground of proportionality.
Instead of breaking the new ground and analyzing the concept thoroughly, the Apex Court
simply restated the position as laid down in Om Kumar case20. In fact in this process, the court

17
(1991) 3 SCC 213
18
AIR 1987 SC 2387
19
Teri Oat Estate (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh, (2004) 2 SCC 130
20
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (AIR 2000 SC 3684) the proceedings arising out of an order of Supreme Court
dated 4-5-2000 proposing to reopen the quantum of punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on
certain officers of the Delhi Development Authority who were connected with the land of the DDA allotted to
M/S Skipper Construction Co. It was proposed to consider impositions of higher degree of punishments in
view of the role of these officers in the said matter. After directions were given by this court that disciplinary
action be taken and punishments were awarded to the officers in accordance with well known principles of
law. In this case court observed that so far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India examined whether
the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus
with the object of the legislation. It means courts were examining the validity of the differences and the
adequacy of the differences. This is nothing but the principle of proportionality.

xiii
created more confusion rather than clarification when it said that where departmental
proceedings reveal several acts of misconduct and charges clearly establish failure in discharge
of duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence, the scope of judicial review on
the ground of proportionality is highly limited to situation of illegality and irrationality. It may be
remembered what is said in the beginning of this topic that in applying proportionality it is
assumed that the grounds of illegality are not there, since if those grounds are there, the decision
will be set aside without going into proportionality. The principle of proportionality replaces the
second sense of Wednesbury or irrationality ground only. And even when misconduct and
charges are clearly established there is scope for proportionality in seeing whether the
punishment imposed is suitable and also necessary in view of the gravity of misconduct or
charges established. It is regrettable that the Apex Court is still groping in the darkness so far as
the scope of proportionality is concerned.

The principle of proportionality is inherent in cases of punishments. This is also the basis of
awarding punishments in the criminal law. For the first time, in Union of India v. Rajesh,21 the
Supreme Court applied the principle of proportionality to an area other than that of punishments.
In this case 134 posts of constables were to be filled up for which written test and viva voce were
held. As a result of allegations of favoritism and nepotism in conducting the physical efficiency
test, the entire selection list was cancelled. This was challenged in the High Court through a writ
petition. Allowing the writ, the High Court found that there were only 31 specific cases of
irregularities. On appeal the Supreme Court upheld the High Court. Applying the principle of
proportionality the Apex Court observed that the “competent authority completely misdirected
itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of canceling the entire selections
wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in
excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision
to be irrational”.

It would not have been possible for the court on Wednesbury principle to set aside the authority’s
decision to cancel the entire selection, because the decision could not be characterized as “so
absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority”.

21
(2003) 7 SCC 285.

xiv
But the court held it to be arbitrary and not reasonable, thus adopting a lower threshold of
unreasonableness than the Wednesbury or the CCSU test.

Proportionality and Article 14 of the Constitution of India

The concept of proportionality in India is restricted from the broad view as it does not accord
with the traditional common law judicial review. The principle of proportionality in India is
based in the Constitution which ensures the fundamental rights as opposed to the statutory basis
in England. Article 14 of the Constitution is one of the main provision under which an
administrative action can be reviewed. Under Article 14, the law or the administrative action has
to satisfy the reasonable test. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India22 , quoting himself
from Royappa case , Justice Bhagwati has read the principle of reasonableness in Article 14 by
the words:

“Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.
The principle of reasonableness, which logically as well as philosophically, is an essential
element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.”23

Any arbitrary action of the administration will be struck down as unconstitutional as it gives it
uncontrolled power and scope for discrimination. The exercise of discretion by the
administration should be guided by the administration itself. If it is not guided then the judiciary
will have to enforce or strike down some actions of the administration as invalid. While testing
the validity of the discretionary power under Article 14 due regard should be given to the
importance of the reasonableness and non-arbitrariness of the action. If the administrative action
is unreasonable and arbitrary, it will be struck down under Article 14.

It may be stated at the onset that the Supreme Court has been applying the test of reasonableness
unreasonably and the proportionality principle disproportionately. The decisions concerning
administrative law affecting fundamental freedoms have always been tested against the principle

22
1978 AIR 597
23
www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/proportionality-as-a-ground-of-judicial-review-
constitutional-law-essay.php#ftn10

xv
of proportionality, although it may not always expressly be stated that the principle being
adopted was that of “proportionality”.

There have been many judgments which elucidate the doctrine of proportionality in Article
14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India. One of the earliest decisions on judicial review in
administrative law was Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India24 and it was observed that:

“The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even
on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the
decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence
would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of
judicial review.”

In the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India25 , inter alia, the Supreme Court noted that while
dealing with the validity of legislation infringing fundamental freedoms enumerated in Article 19
(1) of the Constitution of India, the issue of whether restrictions imposed by the legislation were
disproportionate to the situation and not the least restrictive of choices has been repeatedly
examined by the superior courts in numerous judgments.

Thus in the Om Kumar case proportionality was held to mean whether while regulating the
exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least restrictive choice of measures have been
adopted by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or
administrative order. And that it was for the superior Courts to decide whether the choice made
by the legislature or the administrative authorities infringed the rights excessively. This to my
mind is the essence of the doctrine of proportionality. In State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal
Srivastava and Ors26, the Supreme Court has supplied further credence to ex-parte Daly. One
must also refer to the case of Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain27 where a similar
endorsement was made.

24
1987 AIR 2386
25
2001 (2) SCC 386
26
2006(1) SCT 820
27
(2006) 3 SCC 173

xvi
Based on the facts of the sheo shanker case, the Supreme Court while holding that the High
Court erred in interfering with the quantum of punishment dwelt upon the question of
applicability of doctrine of proportionality. And while holding the view that the doctrine of
proportionality could be invoked only under certain situations, the Court however acknowledged
that the doctrine of unreasonableness was giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.

In the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kannan28 , it was held that where no appeal is
provided for against an administrative order, judicial review of such an order would be
maintainable. Further, that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution while undertaking such review need not confine itself to the traditional tests of
review viz illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

The Judges who adjudicated upon this matter also held the view that in such cases of judicial
review the Court has to necessarily delve deeper into the matter and subject such orders to deeper
scrutiny going beyond the above three tests. The Supreme Court inter alia had to go into the
validity of certain regulations and the power of Judicial Review of administrative acts. While
going into this question, the Supreme Court acknowledged that keeping in view the situational
changes particularly, the outsourcing of sovereign activities by the State; the Supreme Court had
been expanding the scope of judicial review. In its judgment it has held that “the doctrine of
unreasonableness has now given way to the doctrine of proportionality”.

Therefore, there is a new wave of thinking that the Doctrine of Unreasonableness in cases where
applicable could give way to the Doctrine of Proportionality. And we are certain that in
appropriate cases the law will develop accordingly.

The judgment given by court in Aadhar case is a landmark one which leads to settlement of
several debates related to privacy, the constitutionality of Aadhar etc. Doctrine of proportionality
has been utilized by the courts in upholding Aadhar and needs to be understood.

A number of Supreme Court judgments have enumerated the ingredients that need to be fulfilled
for a law to pass the proportionality test.

28
2006 (106) ECC 576

xvii
In Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors 29, a five-judge
Bench of the Supreme Court listed four components to be looked at in order to determine
proportionality.

The same was agreed to in essence by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Justice KS
Puttaswamy v. Union of India30, in which the Court upheld privacy as a fundamental right. In the
judgment, proportionality can be ascertained on the basis of the following:

(a) the action must be sanctioned by law;

(b) the proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim;

(c) the extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;

(d) There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.

Justice AK Sikri considers the above for determining whether Aadhaar passes31 the
proportionality test.Considering all of the above, Justice Sikri laid down a four-fold test to
determine proportionality:

(a) A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage).

(b) It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rationale connection stage).

(c) There must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative (necessity stage).

(d) The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder (balancing stage).

29
((2012) 4 SCC 707)
30
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012
31
https://barandbench.com/proportionality-test-for-aadhaar-the-supreme-courts-two-approaches.

xviii
 CONCLUSION

The doctrine of proportionality has got a lot of utility and scope in India. The essential
ingredients of the principle have not yet been properly appreciated by the courts. We can also see
that the courts act as secondary means to review the action of administrative functions, which
evidentially proves that applicability of this doctrine has not to a satisfying limit.

The positive part of the Indian Judiciary regarding this doctrine is that except in few cases the
judiciary has not interfere with the quantum of punishment as it a discretionary matter for the
administration or the executive. This shows the balancing of powers and functions between
judiciary and the executive in a harmonious manner.

xix
REFERENCES
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/proportionality-as-a-ground-of-judicial-
review-constitutional-law-essay.php

https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2016/11/28/wednesbury-and-proportionality-where-
are-we-now/

www.indiankanoon.org/

https://www.jstor.org/

https://www.lawaudience.com/doctrine-of-proportionality/

Article Reffered:

Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India by Ajoy P.B.

(Advocate, High Court of Kerala, Cochin, India) / IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social
Science/ ISSN: 2279-0837, ISBN: 2279-0845. Volume 1

xx