"An Analysis of the Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law: Practical
Applications."
1
Afeefa Fathima
Abstract
Administrative law is based on the principle of proportionality, which guarantees that
government acts are still essential, reasonable, and balanced with respect to their goals. By
demanding that administrative actions be appropriate, least invasive, and proportionate to the
justifiable goals they pursue, this concept serves as a protection against arbitrary or excessive
state power. The principle of proportionality has become essential in striking a balance between
the protection of individual rights and the public interest as administrative agencies increasingly
wield vast discretionary powers in fields including environmental regulation, public health, and
human rights. This paper explores how proportionality is applied in practice, with a particular
emphasis on its function in administrative decision-making and judicial review. Proportionality
functions as a structured analytical framework, as demonstrated by the study's examination of
case law, regulatory practices, and comparative instances from different states. It assesses if
government actions are suitable for accomplishing their declared goals, whether there are less
restrictive options, and whether the advantages of the policies outweigh any potential drawbacks.
The difficulties and restrictions of using proportionality are also discussed in the study, including
the subjectivity of balancing tests and the possibility of judicial overreach. The paper explains
how proportionality improves accountability, equity, and transparency in governance by
examining these real-world examples. In the end, our analysis emphasizes how important the
theory is for advancing just and efficient administrative governance. It also provides information
about how proportionality will develop in the future to handle new regulatory issues, reiterating
its importance as a tool for striking a balance between individual rights and state power in a
changing legal environment.
Keywords: Proportionality, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Rights Protection,
Governance
1
B.A. LL.B. (HONS) 6TH SEM
CMR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
Chapter I:-Introduction:
In administrative law, the proportionality doctrine has become a cornerstone, guaranteeing that
government acts are necessary, reasonable, and balanced with their proposed goals 2. The
necessity for a strong system to guard against abuse and defend individual rights has grown as
administrative bodies use their wide range of discretionary authority to handle difficult public
policy issues. This technique is known as proportionality, which mandates that the methods used
by public authority be appropriate, minimally invasive, and commensurate to the goals they are
attempting to accomplish3. The theory promotes a balance between the public interest and
individual liberties by incorporating these standards into judicial scrutiny and administrative
decision-making, serving as a safeguard against capricious or overbearing state action4.
The idea of proportionality has many different practical implications in various fields of
administrative law, such as human rights adjudication, environmental protection, public health
initiatives, and regulatory enforcement 5. In order to assess whether government acts are
legitimate and in line with the values of justice, fairness, and the rule of law, courts and
administrative authorities from all over the world have been depending more and more on
proportionality analysis. This analytical framework usually entails a systematic evaluation of
whether a measure is suitable for accomplishing its goals, whether there are less restrictive
options, and whether the action's advantages outweigh any potential drawbacks 6. Through this
process, proportionality increases public trust in administrative governance while also improving
the accountability of public authorities7. In "An Analysis of the Doctrine of Proportionality in
Administrative Law: Practical Applications," the proportionality principle's practical application
is examined. It intends to demonstrate how proportionality functions as a tool for balancing
conflicting interests in administrative decision-making by looking at case law, regulatory
procedures, and comparative examples from other legal systems 8. It will also cover the
difficulties and restrictions that come with putting the concept into practice, like the subjectivity
of balancing tests and the possibility of judicial overreach 9. In the end, this analysis will highlight
2
Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign, 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC) (S. Afr.) (applying proportionality to
assess state obligations in health care delivery).
3
R (Daly) v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2001] UKHL 26, [2001] 2 A.C. 532 (H.L.) (introducing structured
proportionality review in U.K. law).
4
Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791 (Can.) (emphasizing proportionality in health-related
regulations impacting individual liberties).
5
German Federal Constitutional Court, Aviation Security Act Case, BVerfGE 115, 118 (2006) (striking down
emergency security legislation for disproportional impact on life and dignity).
6
Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76 (Can.)
(using proportionality to weigh children's rights against parental freedoms).
7
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Commc’ns, Joined Cases C-293/12 & C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238
(CJEU) (highlighting public trust and necessity in mass data retention policies).
8
Bank Mellat v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2), [2013] UKSC 39, [2013] 3 W.L.R. 179 (U.K.) (case study in
judicial review of economic sanctions using proportionality).
how important proportionality is to fostering just and efficient governance while providing
insights into how it may change going forward in light of new administrative difficulties 10.
Chapter II:- Content
Conceptual Foundations of Administrative Law's Proportionality:
A cornerstone of administrative law is the proportionality principle, which makes sure that
government acts don't go beyond what is required to accomplish justifiable goals. It serves as a
check on the arbitrary or overreaching exercise of state power, encouraging justice, fairness, and
reasonableness in the process of making decisions. Proportionality, which has its roots in
European legal traditions, has been widely embraced in common law nations, impacting
governance structures and judicial scrutiny.
Definition and Evolution of Proportionality in History:
According to the legal principle of proportionality, administrative actions must fairly balance the
rights of individuals with the public interest. It guarantees that government actions don't go
beyond what is required to achieve their stated objectives without being too severe or invasive.
Originating in European legal traditions, namely in German and EU law, the idea developed as a
cornerstone of judicial review. In common law systems, proportionality has become more
accepted over time, especially when it comes to instances involving administrative discretion and
fundamental rights.
Four-Step Proportionality Test:
Courts and administrative bodies use the four-step proportionality test to assess whether a
governmental or administrative action is justified. This test ensures that state actions are neither
arbitrary nor excessively restrictive, thereby maintaining a balance between public interests and
individual rights. Each stage of the test serves a distinct purpose in evaluating the
appropriateness and fairness of a given measure.
1. Legitimate Aim: The first step in the proportionality test is determining whether the measure
in question pursues a legitimate and lawful objective. This means that the action must serve a
recognized legal purpose, such as:
National security: Measures to combat terrorism, espionage, or threats to public safety.
Public order: Laws regulating protests, assemblies, or law enforcement practices.
Public health: Vaccination mandates, quarantine regulations, and pandemic control
measures.
Protection of fundamental rights: Safeguards against discrimination, promotion of
equality, and access to justice.
9
State v. Makwanyane, 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (S. Afr.) (discussing the limits of proportionality and the potential for
judicial overreach).
10
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (acknowledging the challenge of applying traditional
proportionality tests to evolving digital surveillance).
For an action to pass this stage, it must not be arbitrary or unjustified, meaning the
government or administrative body must clearly define the public interest it seeks to protect.
Courts will reject actions that lack a legitimate basis in law or violate constitutional principles.
Example Case: R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School (2006)11
In this case, a student was prohibited from wearing a religious garment (jilbab) at school.
The school argued that its uniform policy promoted discipline and social harmony.
The court assessed whether the school’s dress code had a legitimate educational and
disciplinary purpose.
The ruling emphasized that the policy pursued a legitimate aim—maintaining
uniformity and cohesion among students—rather than an arbitrary restriction on religious
expression.
2. Suitability (Rational Connection to the Aim): Once a legitimate aim has been established,
the next step is determining whether the measure is suitable or appropriate for achieving that
aim. The measure must have a rational connection to the stated objective, meaning:
The action should logically contribute to achieving the goal.
If the measure is ineffective or does not address the problem it aims to solve, it will fail
this stage.
Courts often ask: Does this measure actually help in achieving the intended purpose, or is it
an ineffective or disproportionate response?
Example Case: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (2013)12
The UK government imposed financial sanctions on Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank, to
prevent funding for nuclear proliferation.
The bank challenged the decision, arguing that the sanctions were arbitrary and did not
effectively address the issue.
The UK Supreme Court applied the proportionality test, analyzing whether the
sanctions were suitable for achieving the government’s counter-terrorism
objectives.
The court found that the sanctions were too broad and disproportionate, as they
unfairly targeted one institution while allowing similar banks to operate.
Key takeaway: If an action does not have a logical or effective connection to the aim it seeks to
achieve, it may be deemed disproportionate.
3. Necessity (Least Restrictive Means Test): Even if a measure is legitimate and suitable, the
necessity test examines whether a less restrictive alternative could achieve the same goal.
Courts evaluate:
11
R (Begum) v. Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15
12
Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39
Whether the action imposes excessive restrictions on rights.
Whether there is a less intrusive measure that could achieve the same result.
Whether the government considered alternative options before implementing the
measure.
If a less restrictive and equally effective alternative exists, the court may strike down the
measure as unnecessary.
Example Case: R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011)13
The UK government imposed a blanket rule prohibiting under-21s from sponsoring
foreign spouses for visas to prevent forced marriages.
The measure was challenged by couples who were prevented from living together despite
being in genuine relationships.
The court ruled that the government’s aim (preventing forced marriages) was legitimate
but not necessary, as:
o The blanket ban affected all young couples, including those in genuine
relationships.
o Less restrictive alternatives (e.g., case-by-case assessments or interviews) could
have achieved the same goal without violating fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court struck down the rule as disproportionate because it was not the
least restrictive means available.
Key takeaway: If an administrative measure is excessively broad and affects more people than
necessary, it may fail the necessity test. Courts require governments to demonstrate that no
better, less intrusive alternative exists before imposing restrictions.
4. Balancing (Proportionality in the Strict Sense): The final stage of the test requires courts to
weigh the benefits of the measure against the harm it causes. Even if an action is legitimate,
suitable, and necessary, it must not impose an unjustifiable burden on individuals.
Courts consider:
The severity of the restriction on rights vs. the importance of the goal.
Whether the benefits of the measure outweigh the harm imposed.
Whether the action is too severe in light of the government’s objective.
If the burden on individuals is excessive compared to the benefit gained by the state, the
measure may be declared disproportionate.
Example Case: R (Huang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2007)14
The case involved an immigration decision where a foreign national’s right to remain in
the UK conflicted with the state’s immigration control policies.
13
(Quila) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45
14
(Huang) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11
The government argued that strict immigration policies were necessary to maintain
public order and regulate migration effectively.
The individual, however, argued that deportation would interfere with his right to
family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court ruled that:
o Although immigration control is a legitimate aim, the harm caused by
deportation outweighed the public interest in enforcing immigration rules.
o The government failed to justify why this individual’s removal was necessary
in a proportionate manner.
o As a result, the decision was deemed disproportionate and unfair.
Comparative Analysis of Related Legal Theories:
An essential concept in administrative law is the proportionality principle, which guarantees that
government acts are reasonable, balanced, and do not unnecessarily restrict people's rights.
Proportionality is comparable to other legal theories like reasonableness and legitimate
expectation, but it differs in its analytical and structured approach. Its use is more extensive,
though, and it offers a more methodical evaluation of administrative choices.
Proportionality and Reasonableness: The principle of reasonableness, particularly as
developed in English administrative law, has traditionally been used to assess the legality of
government decisions. The Wednesbury reasonableness test, established in Associated
Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)15 , determines that a decision is
unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority could have made it. This test
sets a high threshold for judicial intervention, meaning that courts will only overturn a decision if
it is manifestly absurd or irrational.
In contrast, proportionality provides a more structured and detailed framework for judicial
review. Instead of merely assessing whether a decision is outrageously unreasonable,
proportionality involves a systematic four-step analysis:
(1) Identifying a legitimate aim,
(2) Ensuring the measure is suitable to achieve that aim,
(3) Determining whether it is necessary, meaning there is no less restrictive alternative, and
(4) Conducting a balancing test to weigh the benefits of the decision against the harm caused to
individual rights. This structured approach allows courts to engage in a deeper examination of
administrative decisions rather than simply applying a vague standard of unreasonableness.
For instance, in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013]16, the Supreme Court applied
proportionality rather than Wednesbury reasonableness to assess financial sanctions imposed by
15
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
16
Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39
the UK government. The court found that the measures were neither necessary nor appropriately
balanced against the rights of the bank, demonstrating how proportionality provides a more
refined analysis than the reasonableness standard.
Proportionality and Legitimate Expectation: The doctrine of legitimate expectation protects
individuals from arbitrary government actions by ensuring that public authorities honor past
assurances or established practices. If a public body has made a clear promise or consistently
followed a certain policy, individuals affected by it can claim that they have a legitimate
expectation that it will continue. If the government decides to change the policy, it must provide
a valid justification. Proportionality often intersects with the doctrine of legitimate expectation in
cases where administrative decisions alter pre-existing rights or entitlements. Courts may use
proportionality to assess whether the government’s justification for changing a policy outweighs
the harm caused to individuals. If an alternative, less intrusive approach exists, the decision may
be deemed disproportionate.
For example, in R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017]17, the UK Supreme Court ruled that
high tribunal fees imposed by the government were disproportionate because they severely
restricted access to justice, violating the legitimate expectation of fair legal recourse. Here, the
proportionality analysis helped reinforce the protection of procedural fairness and due process.
Practical Applications of Proportionality:
1. Judicial review: To enable that administrative measures adhere to the proportionality
principle, the courts are essential. Courts can determine whether government choices fairly
balance upholding individual rights with accomplishing governmental goals thanks to
judicial review18. In situations pertaining to social assistance, immigration laws,
fundamental rights, and access to the legal system, the proportionality principle is
especially pertinent19. Courts make ensuring that the activities of public authorities are
reasonable, necessary, and balanced, and that they do not impose undue constraints 20. These
seminal decisions show how courts have used proportionality in several administrative law
domains21.
17
R (UNISON) v. Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
18
De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing, [1999] 1 A.C. 69
(P.C.) (affirming proportionality test in judicial review involving rights).
19
Khosa v. Minister of Social Development, 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC) (S. Afr.) (applying proportionality to social
grants policy that excluded permanent residents).
20
Chahal v. United Kingdom, 23 Eur. H.R. Rep. 413 (1996) (holding that national security deportation must comply
with proportionality and non-refoulement obligations).
21
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711 (Can.) (assessing
proportionality in deportation of non-citizens under immigration law).
i. R (Huang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 22 UKHL 11 –
Proportionality in Immigration Decisions
This case involved an appeal by Huang, a Chinese national, whose application for indefinite
leave to remain in the UK was refused. The House of Lords considered whether the refusal
violated his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR). The court held that in immigration cases involving human rights, decision-makers must
assess whether their decisions are proportionate. This case reinforced the need for courts to
conduct a detailed proportionality assessment rather than merely applying a broad
reasonableness test.
ii. R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 23 – Balancing
Individual Rights Against Public Interest in Visa Regulations
This case concerned a Home Office policy that prevented individuals under 21 from sponsoring a
foreign spouse for a visa. The policy aimed to prevent forced marriages. However, the Supreme
Court ruled that the blanket restriction was disproportionate because it adversely affected many
genuine marriages without sufficient evidence that it was necessary to combat forced marriages.
The judgment emphasized that proportionality requires a tailored approach rather than broad,
overly restrictive measures.
iii. R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] 24– Proportionality in Judicial Review of Tribunal
Decisions
This case addressed whether decisions of the Upper Tribunal (UT) should be subject to judicial
review. The Supreme Court held that judicial review should be available in limited cases where a
tribunal’s decision raises an important legal issue or a clear error. The ruling demonstrated the
proportionality principle in the context of access to justice, ensuring that while judicial review
was not unlimited, it remained available when fundamental rights were at stake.
iv. R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013]25 UKSC 61 – Proportionality in Parole Board
Decisions
This case concerned the refusal of oral hearings for prisoners seeking parole. The Supreme Court
ruled that denying oral hearings was a disproportionate restriction on the right to a fair hearing
under Article 6 of the ECHR. The judgment underscored that administrative decisions affecting
fundamental rights must be subject to procedural safeguards and that proportionality is essential
in determining fair trial rights.
22
R (Huang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11
23
R (Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45
24
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28
25
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
v. R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63 – Proportionality in
Prisoner Voting Rights
This case involved a challenge to the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting. The Supreme Court
acknowledged that the policy was in conflict with European human rights jurisprudence but held
that Parliament had the authority to decide the matter. However, the case reinforced the
proportionality principle in assessing the extent to which administrative restrictions on voting
rights must be justified by strong public interest reasons.
vi. R (McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33 –
Proportionality in Social Care Decisions
This case involved an elderly woman who challenged a decision by her local authority to
withdraw night-time care services and instead provide incontinence pads. The Supreme Court
ruled that while the decision was within the authority’s discretion, it had to be justified as
proportionate. The case highlighted the importance of proportionality in public service decisions
and ensuring that cost-saving measures do not disproportionately impact vulnerable individuals.
2. Fundamental Rights and Proportionality: The principle of proportionality is
important in balancing individual rights with state interests, especially in
fundamental freedoms. Courts use this principle to ensure that any restriction of
rights is necessary, justified, and not excessive.26
1. Sunday Times v. United Kingdom27: This case considered the conflict between freedom of
expression and the protection of judicial authority. The European Court of Human Rights held
that any interference with free speech must be “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a
democratic society,” reinforcing the requirement for proportionality.
2. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly28: In this UK House of
Lords decision, the proportionality principle was used to strike down a prison policy that
infringed upon a prisoner’s right to confidential communication with his solicitor. The Court
emphasized that proportionality involves a stricter standard of review than the traditional
Wednesbury reasonableness.
3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka29: In this Indian Supreme Court case, the Court held that
involuntary administration of narco-analysis, brain mapping, and polygraph tests violated the
26
See R (Daly), [2001] UKHL 26, [2001] 2 A.C. 532 (H.L.).
27
Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, 2 Eur. H.R. Rep. 245 (1979).
28
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly, [2001] UKHL 26.
29
Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
right against self-incrimination and privacy. The proportionality test was applied to determine
that such techniques were not the least intrusive means.
Proportionality in Anti-Discrimination Law
4. Grutter v. Bollinger30: This U.S. Supreme Court case upheld affirmative action in university
admissions, applying a strict scrutiny standard—which overlaps with proportionality reasoning—
to assess whether racial preferences were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in
diversity.
5. International Transport Roth GmbH v. Secretary of State for the Home Department31:
In this case, the UK Court of Appeal struck down a penalty scheme for foreign transporters
under the proportionality principle, emphasizing that the penalties imposed were excessively
burdensome relative to the policy goal.
6. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India32: This Indian case on affirmative action and
reservations reaffirmed that equality under Article 14 of the Constitution must be interpreted in a
manner consistent with proportionality. The Court applied the principle to assess the legitimacy
and necessity of caste-based quotas in education.
Future Directions for Proportionality in the Digital Age
The changing nature of governance—spearheaded by automation, algorithmic decision-making,
and artificial intelligence—has presented new challenges to administrative law. With states
increasingly relying on digital technologies for governance, the threat of hidden and potentially
discriminatory administrative measures has become greater. Under such circumstances, the
**principle of proportionality must be developed** to test not just human but machine-driven
decision-making.33
1. AI and Algorithmic Decision-Making:- The application of AI in public decision-making
processes—predictive policing, distribution of welfare, and visa issuing needs examination under
a rights-based approach. The courts need to consider whether the systems are constructed and
implemented so as to invade constitutional rights as little as possible such as privacy, equality,
and due process.34 Proportionality testing provides a systematic judicial framework for assessing
30
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
31
Int’l Transp. Roth GmbH v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2003] QB 728 (CA).
32
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1.
33
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2220 (2018) (recognizing the need to adapt constitutional protections
to new technologies).
34
R (Bridges) v. Chief Constable of South Wales Police, [2020] EWCA Civ 1058, [2020] 1 W.L.R. 5037 (U.K.)
(holding that live facial recognition interfered with privacy and must satisfy proportionality).
whether decisions made by algorithms pursue a legitimate goal, are essential, and cause minimal
harm.35
Recommendations for Enhancing Proportionality Review
1. Judicial Standardization and Clarity - Judges need to formulate more precise interpretative
rules for applying proportionality to tech-driven decisions. This would minimize judicial
subjectivity and improve consistency.36 As an example, in automated profiling or risk-scoring
cases, a transparent test should necessitate disclosure of logic, impact assessment, and evidence
of necessity.37
2. Legislative Codification - Legislatures ought to clearly include proportionality tests in
administrative and data governance laws. This would guarantee that agencies engaged in
surveillance, profiling, or automated handling do so according to constitutional requirements at
the beginning.38
Chapter III:- Conclusion
The proportionality doctrine is an essential safeguard against arbitrary and excessive use of
administrative discretion, upholding the values of fairness, necessity, and rational justification.
As an organized approach to judicial review, it guarantees that state action continues to be in
accordance with constitutional values while maintaining individual rights. Its success, however,
hinges on a delicate balance—remaining organized in approach but flexible in context. In the
future, proportionality will be playing an increasingly pivotal role in administrative law globally,
particularly as legal systems face new governance challenges presented by digital technologies
and complex policy landscapes.
35
La Quadrature du Net v. Commission, Case T-738/16, ECLI:EU:T:2020:793 (Gen. Ct. 2020) (invalidating data
sharing decisions for lack of proportional safeguards).
36
State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749, 761–63 (Wis. 2016) (raising due process concerns over opaque risk assessment
algorithms in sentencing).
37
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Commc’ns, Joined Cases C-293/12 & C-594/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:238
(CJEU 2014) (striking down data retention laws for failing proportionality review).
38
Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Watson, [2018] AC 355 (U.K. Sup. Ct.) (urging legislative
conformity with proportionality-based EU data protection standards).
