The Significance of the Doctrine of Proportionality

Introduction

The principle of proportionality is European in origin. The concept of the doctrine of proportionality has been described as the most significant general law principle of European Administrative Law. The principle of proportionality states that a public authority should maintain a sense of proportion between its specific aims and the means it uses to attain these goals so that its actions infringe on individual rights only to the degree necessary to protect public interest. Administrative actions should have an appropriate relation to the overall reason for which the authority is granted.

Meaning of The Doctrine Of Proportionality

The meaning of the doctrine of proportionality can be that courts must consider the benefits and drawbacks of an administrative act. If the balance is favourable, the court will affirm the administrative decision. The administration must create a balance that outlines the advantages and disadvantages in any decision that is of significance for individuals and the public.

The doctrine of proportionality states that any administrative decision may be invalidated when it is in any manner not proportional to the offence at the point at which it was directed. Actions taken by the administration should be proportional to the purpose they are pursuing. A decision-making authority exercising discretionary power must be able to maintain a balanced equilibrium between any negative consequences that its decision could affect people’s rights, liberty, or concern and the goal it is pursuing. Overall, the person making the decision must possess an understanding of proportion.

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation 

If someone seeks an appeal to the court on account of the legitimacy of his expectation being denied, the court must first examine whether there was an actual expectation. Legitimate expectations are believed to come about “as the result of a statement or practice or for the benefit of the government or an authority of public interest.” Thus, it refers to benefits that an individual has already received and has the right to expect to receive or which he is expecting to receive. If an individual’s legitimate expectation is thwarted, it provides the individual the right to challenge the decision of the administrative authority as unlawful. Even if there is no substantive claim, legitimate expectations can allow the individual to apply for a judicial review.

The Doctrine of Legal Expectation in India

The procedural component that is the legitimate expectation doctrine is widely accepted in India. The Supreme Court of India has previously delivered several decisions on the issue without any clarity regarding the scope of application of this doctrine. The most prominent case that addressed the doctrine in detail came from the matter in Union of India v Hindustan Development Corporation. In this instance, the Indian Railways introduced a dual pricing system initiated by the government to facilitate even and healthy competition between three producers who were operating at a large scale and other smaller ones. The dual pricing system meant that the railways continued to provide counter-offers at a lower price while simultaneously giving tenders to small-scale producers for higher rates.

Large manufacturers fought the policy on a variety of grounds, including that it was unjust and they were entitled to receiving treatment in a particular manner by the Railways as per an established policy that was a part of the Indian Railways. In fact, while addressing the question of legitimate expectations, the Supreme Court established the current status of legitimate expectations in India. The court recognised legitimate expectation as valid to be a locus standi for the judicial review. In this case, the  legitimate expectation theory was mainly restricted to legitimate expectations in the course of procedural review in the statement “it is generally accepted that legitimate expectation provides an applicant the right to a locus standi for judicial review.”

Moreover, the concept of legitimate expectation is limited to the right to an impartial hearing before a decision that will result in a “breach of the promise or rescinding an undertaking.” However, it also imposes the burden on applicants to prove the legitimacy of an expectation and its denial from the government. 

The applicant must establish the basis for the claim. In the words of the Court, “a legitimate expectation could arise when a person through representation or past practice created an expectation that it was competent to fulfil.” In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the conduct of the authority was arbitrarily or unreasonable and in violation of public interest.”

Conclusion

The notion of the doctrine of proportionality is utilised as a test to judge fairness in the statutory interpretation procedure, and as a logical way to aid in determining the right proportionality between objectives of law and strategies employed to attain these goals. The doctrine of proportionality is connected to the concept of interpretation of statutes that ensure justice and fairness. It is a type of limit on the administration’s actions or legislative laws to be less drastic when they are used to achieve desired outcomes to ensure a sense of proportions between its objectives and conserving public interest while having minimal impact on the rights of an individual.