Abstract

The doctrine of proportionality is a legal principle that aims to balance competing interests in situations where fundamental rights are at stake. In India, the right to privacy is a fundamental right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court. The scope and ambit of the doctrine of proportionality with respect to the right to privacy in India are vast and complex. The doctrine of proportionality requires that any infringement on the right to privacy be proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved by the state. The state must demonstrate that the infringement is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved. The doctrine also requires that the least intrusive means be used to achieve the legitimate aim. In India, the scope of the doctrine of proportionality with respect to the right to privacy has been expanded by the Supreme Court in recent years. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. However, any restrictions imposed on the right to privacy must be proportionate and must not be excessive. The ambit of the doctrine of proportionality with respect to the right to privacy in India extends to various aspects of modern life, including surveillance, data protection, and online privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized that the right to privacy extends to informational privacy, which includes the protection of personal data. Overall, the doctrine of proportionality plays a critical role in balancing the competing interests of the state and individuals with respect to the right to privacy in India. It requires the state to demonstrate that any infringement on the right to privacy is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved.

• 1.   Doctrine of proportionality implies, when rights are violated by administrative action and the courts specifically examine administrative conduct and raise questions about the accuracy of the authority's decisions, the doctrine of proportionality applies. Common sense dictates that it should not be more extreme than necessary to achieve desired outcomes. This indicates that sparrows cannot be fired with canon. This way of thinking, as such, tries to offset implies with closes.
• 2.   Kai Moller, Proportionality: Challenging the critics, 10 Oxford University Press & New York University School of Law 709, 709-731 (2012).
• 3.   Dieter Grimm, Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence, 57 U. T Oronto L.J. 383 (2007).
• 4.   India Const. art. 21.
• 5.   Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1461.
• 6.   Ibid.
• 7.   Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597 (India).
• 8.   Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (2006) 65 (1) C.L.J.174, p. 175].
• 9.   Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, 1 KB 223 (1948).
• 10.   Omkumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 S.C. 3689 (India).
• 11.   India Const. art. 19(1).
• 12.   Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 S.C.C. 501 (India).
• 13.   Maharashtra Law Development Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 15 SSC 616
• 14.   Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 611 (India).
• 15.   Sophie Boyron, Proportionality in English Administrative Law, Review of European Administrative Law (September. 21, 2023, 21:04 PM), https://repository.essex.ac.uk/30353/1/P ro ef -R EAL -2 021- 1% 2 0-% 20y m% 20-%20proportionality.pdf
• 16.   De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and Housing, [1998] 3 WLR 675.
• 17.   Ajoy P.B., Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India, 1 IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 16, 16-23 (2012)
• 18.   Ibid.
• 19.   Jane McManamon, The Origin and Migration of Proportionality, 1, 2-6 (2010).
• 20.   European Court of Justice.
• 21.   R v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Federation Europeenne de la Sante Animale (FEDESA), Case C-1/96.
• 22.   The European Convention of Human Rights, Article 8 (1950).
• 23.   Ajoy P.B., Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India, 1 IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 16, 16-23 (2012).
• 24.   Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12 (1948).
• 25.   International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Article 17 (1966).
• 26.   United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, UNITED NATIONS (September. 25, 2023 20:23 PM), https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-privacy.
• 27.   Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors., A.I.R. 2017 S.C. 1461 (India).
• 28.   India Const. art. 21.
• 29.   India Const. art. 14.
• 30.   India Const. art. 19.
• 31.   India Const. art. 25.
• 32.   Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597 (India).
• 33.   Gobind v. State of MP, 1975 A.I.R. 1378 (India).
• 34.   Peoples Union for Civil Liability v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 (India).
• 35.   State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5 (India).
• 36.   India Const. art. 21.
• 37.   Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1461, Para 45 (India).
• 38.   Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 1461, Para 33 (India).
• 39.   India Const. art. 21.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding