Applying The Doctrine Of Proportionality To Address Arbitrary Administrative Actions In Service Matters

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Banking & Finance

Published: 2026-08-23T18:05:58.217457+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:08.067+00:00

APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY TO

ADDRESS ARBITRARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN

SERVICE MATTERS

Bhuvanesh.J, BBA. LLB., (Hons) School of Excellence in Law, Chennai Hariroopan.M, BBA. LLB., (Hons) School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

ABSTRACT

The Doctrine of Proportionality serves as a primary tool in the judicial review of administrative actions and decisions in almost all common law countries. It originated from the European jurisprudence and has evolved over the years. The basic principle of this doctrine is that governmental actions should be reasonable and not excessively intrusive of individual rights. This doctrine has been incorporated in the Indian constitution and the Indian judicial system. It plays a significant role in Indian administrative law by safeguarding individual rights, particularly the fundamental rights of the citizens. This article speaks about the origination and development of this doctrine in India and focuses on its application in the service sector. The service sector is the vital organ of the country and is governed by various service laws that aim to regulate administrative actions.

This article discusses about how the doctrine of proportionality is applied in the service sector and the control over the arbitrary actions of the government. It further examines various judgements of the Supreme Court to analyse the current position of the doctrine in the Indian judiciary and how far it is essential in maintaining fairness and justice in administrative decision-making.

DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY:

The doctrine of proportionality is a new domain of judicial review whereby the courts review the administrative decisions regarding the punishments or the verdicts given which is irrational, excessive or unreasonable. According to this doctrine, the legality of a decision is asserted by the balance between the objective of the legislation and the means by which the objective is achieved. It means that the administrative decision taken must be proportional to the aim of the legislation or the gravity of the offence. This principle implies that the context must be asserted before deciding upon the legality of an action. In the words of Lord Diplock, proportionality is “you must not use a steam hammer to crack a nut if a nut cracker would do”.

1 Proportionality implies that governmental actions must not be more intrusive or unreasonable than the essential limit to achieve the intended objective. However, the doctrine of proportionality can only be invoked when the decision is irrational and there’s outraged defiance of logic. 2 This doctrine ensures that governmental actions and decisions are fair and that there’s a balance between the objectives and rights. It helps in assessing any undue harm from governmental actions.

EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY AND ITS EVOLUTION IN

INDIA:

The doctrine of proportionality is present in everyone’s day-to-day life. This doctrine is a depiction of fairness and is symbolised by the justice angel carrying two scales symbolising rational decisions. The concept of proportional decision is not a new idea, it has been present since ancient times. The evolution of the doctrine of proportionality can be seen in the ancient Greek notions of corrective justice (justitia vindicativa) and distributive justice (justitia distributiva). This doctrine was put into writing in the Magna Carta in 1215. In the 19th century, it was incorporated into the German constitution and was also adopted in the European Convention on Human Rights in 1959. 3 The judicial decision in Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation4 led to the formation of the Wednesbury principle which means that administrative discretion should be exercised reasonably.

However, the Wednesbury unreasonableness concept was vague and cannot be applied for objective evaluation. Then

1 R v. Goldstein, (1983) 1 W.L.R. 151, 155.

2 Karnataka v. H Nagaraj, (1998) 9 SCC 671.

3 Barak, A. (2012) ‘The historical origins of proportionality’, in Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law), pp. 175–210.

4 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, 1 KB 223 (1948).

came the doctrine of proportionality in the case of R v. Goldsmith,5 whereby it was further defined precisely by Lord Diplock. The common law countries started adopting the principle of proportionality as the primary judicial review tool based on which administrative decisions are reviewed. India, which was a colonial State of the British, inherited the common law system. After independence, the constitution of India contained Articles such as 13,6 14,7 32,8 and 2269 which related to the judicial review of administrative actions by the courts and incorporated the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness10. However, the doctrine of proportionality was first observed by the Indian judiciary in Omkumar v. Union of India11. But the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.

Ganayutham,12 it was held that Wednesbury principle can be applied for judicial review of administrative actions until it affects the Fundamental Rights of the individual. Hence, both the Wednesbury principle and doctrine of proportionality are in practice in the Indian judicial system.

SERVICE SECTOR:

The public service sector comprises of government entities and employees responsible for implementing laws, rules, regulations, policies and also the essential services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, government records management, transportation etc. The public service sector consists of persons employed by public authorities at central, regional, and local levels and include both civil servants and public employees. Service sector is governed by administrative law, which regulates the appointment, dismissal, discipline and accountability of the public authorities ensuring that the public officials, work within the legal boundaries and their actions are fair, reasonable, transparent and efficient. However, there are separate service laws such as The Legal Services Authorities Act, 198713, The All India Services Act, 195114, governing the service sector in India.

Public Sector Undertakings (PSU)

5 R v. Goldstein, (1983) 1 W.L.R. 151, 155.

6 INDIA CONST. art. 13.

7 INDIA CONST. art. 14.

8 INDIA CONST. art. 32.

9 INDIA CONST. art. 226.

10 Maharashtra Law Development Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 15 SCC 616.

11 Omkumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.

12 Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, AIR 1997 SC 3387.

13 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1987 (India).

14 All India Services Act, 1951, No. 61, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India).

also falls under the service sector, which provides public services while adhering to administrative regulations.

JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ARBITRARY DECISIONS IN THE SERVICE SECTOR

The Control the Judiciary exercises over administrative actions is known as Judicial Review. This is the power of the Judiciary to ensure that administrative acts stay within the limits of the law and also act as protection for people. The Judiciary entertains actions by citizens who are aggrieved by the actions of the administrative authorities. The judiciary then can choose to intervene upon fairly hearing both sides and may determine whether the administrative action was within the bounds of the law. This is an extension of the Checks and Balances Doctrine. This ensures that there isn’t unfair decision making on the part of the administration and ensures that proper Checks and Balances are present amidst the different organs of the Government. Judicial Control Primarily relies on two Doctrines;

1) Doctrine of Ultra Vires

2) Doctrine of Proportionality

These two doctrines have evolved over the years and act as a control over the administrative decision making in, respectively, Jurisdiction of action taken and the Proportionality of the action taken. The General principle in administrative decision making is that, the administrative authorities must exercise the power conferred unto them rationally and reasonably. The Administrative authority cannot make a decision that overrules morality, reason, or proportionality. When the same is done, the Judiciary intervenes via the Doctrine of Proportionality. This control by the judiciary is present in the Public Services sector as well, the administration cannot make any decisions arbitrarily or unreasonably, without being liable to Judicial Review.

If a person has grounds to believe a government worker is acting outside his power or acting unfairly or if he is acting unreasonably, the courts can be approached and the court issues prerogative writs, depending on the circumstances in order to protect the fundamental rights of the people. The same is applicable in service matters as well. The State and its decision making in regards to its employees in the public service sector is also liable to the test of proportionality.

Any decision making should be reasonable, legal, and aimed at achieving the goal in the most efficient manner possible.

CASES ON THE DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN SERVICE MATTERS

1) Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service15 (The GCHQ Case)

This was one of the early cases on the applicability of the Doctrine of Proportionality and the Judicial review on the same grounds. The facts of this case were very simple. When Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives were in control of the United Kingdom in the 1980s, it was decided that all workers at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) were not allowed to join a union. The possible threat to national security served as justification for this decision, which was then carried out by an Order of the Council, an exercise of the Royal Prerogative Power. The question raised at the High Court of Justice was, “In the event that employees are prohibited or have restricted access to trade unions, how will this affect individuals' ability to rely on certain employment-related laws or union representation?

” The Council of Civil Service Unions brought the dispute before the court through judicial review. The Order was declared unlawful at the High Court of Justice during the case's initial hearing, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision after an appeal. It was decided that national security was the most important factor to consider and that judgments made based on this should not be considered. The matter was then taken up for appeal in the House of Lords, which decided that the Royal Prerogative might be subject to judicial review. This decision was a significant divergence from earlier legislation. The case is significant because it breaks with the courts' reluctance to judicially scrutinize prerogative powers.

According to Lord Diplock, when the exercise of the prerogative authority affects someone's "private rights or legitimate expectations," that exercise of power ought to be subject to review. Based on the idea that judicial review might be used to examine the exercise of prerogative authority that was delegated from the monarch, Lord Fraser and Lord Brightman reached the same result.

15 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, (1985) AC 374, (1985) ICR 14.

The Courts intervened in these cases because the prerogative power vested in the administrative must not be without control. In the above case, employees were deprived of their personal rights to join Unions on the grounds of National Security. This was found as a reasonable ground. This is because the order depriving the employees of their rights is the only proportional and rational way to achieve the end goal of National Security. But this case is more significant because this laid down the law that, the courts could have power of judicial review even in the public service sector.

2) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Ors.16

A bus conductor was accused of issuing short-distance tickets to 11 passengers instead of

charging the correct fare. Despite his dismissal following an inquiry, there was no direct evidence from passengers about where they boarded the bus. The conductor argued that the inquiry was flawed, as no passengers were questioned to confirm whether they boarded at "Zero Road" or the "High Court. " The High Court later ruled that the punishment was disproportionate, as there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing, leading to his reinstatement with 25% back wages. The High Court had intervened as the Doctrine of Proportionality had been violated. The Punishment meted out as in comparison to the wrongdoing committed was very disproportional. The Court had invoked its powers under Article 22617 to ensure the rights of the conductor were protected.

This is a clear example of Judicial review in public service matters in order to protect the employees from unfair or After the High Court, there had been an appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary contention of the Appellants was that there cannot be any interference in the quantum of punishments by the court. The respondents, on the other hand, asked for the reinstatement of 75 percentage of their wages. The Supreme Court upon thorough analysis of precedent, decided that the court had the power of judicial review on the grounds of the Doctrine of Proportionality in these cases. This marks another famous case in regards to service law. The Bus conductor had gone through the entire inquiry and the internal decision making authority before it reaches the courts.

Was it proportional to terminate the bus conductor in the backdrop of there not even being enough evidence to confirm the fact that there had been a wrongdoing from the bus conductor. Rather, if the High Court did not have the power or right to intervene, there would

16 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1151.

17 INDIA CONST. art. 226.

be grave injustice meted out to employees on inconclusive evidence. These acts would just be arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.

3) Colour-Chem Limited vs A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors.18

Respondents 3 and 4, employed as Plant Operators, were caught sleeping during their night shift alongside 10 labourers and their supervisor while machinery continued running. Following a surprise inspection on 5th-6th May 1982, a chargesheet was issued, and after a domestic inquiry, both were dismissed on 4th June 1983. They challenged their dismissal under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, claiming victimization and unfair labour practices. The Issue raised before the High Court was “Whether the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate and amounted to unfair labour practice under Clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act? ” The severity of the employees' wrongdoing was deemed to be wildly out of proportion to the penalty of dismissal, as determined by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The misconduct, which comprised sleeping on the job throughout the night shift, was deemed serious but not serious enough to result in the employee's termination, particularly in light of their prior service history. In accordance with the precedents set forth in earlier decisions, the court concluded that this excessive penalty amounted to legal victimization. This case also acted as a precedent for multiple future cases as this laid down the proposition that the Judiciary had the power to intervene when a punishment imposed on an employee is shockingly disproportionate. Doctrine of Proportionality, in other words, acts as a direct bar of abuse of power by the administrative in the Public Service Sector and as a tool of the Judiciary in its decision making in Service and employment matters.

The decisions made by the authority, whenever disproportionate, barring exceptions, is struck down by the judiciary on this ground in order to protect employees from arbitrary, unfair and disproportional decision making.

CONCLUSION:

Enforcing justice and fairness in the public service sector requires the judiciary to play a crucial

18 Colour-Chem Limited v. A.L. Alaspurkar & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 948.

role in reducing arbitrary decision-making. Courts stop administrative agencies from acting outside of the law or inflicting disproportionate penalties through the use of Judicial Review and the Proportionality Doctrine. These tenets keep administrators responsible and guarantee that choices are rational, just, and lawful. Employees are shielded from unjust terminations and other severe sanctions that aren't appropriate for the type of offence they committed. In the end, the judiciary's supervision guarantees the equitable use of administrative power by discouraging capricious behaviour and bolstering the harmony between the rights of public servants and authority.