Login
Register
- Mocks
- Previous Papers
- Learn
- Practice
- Colleges
- Courses
- Enroll To CAT 2024
- Tools
- Offers
- Other Exams
- Blogs
- Adda
The requirement of balancing various considerations brings us to the principle of proportionality. In the case of K. S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) (supra), this Court observed: "310...Proportionality is an essential facet of the guarantee against arbitrary State action because it ensures that the nature and quality of the encroachment on the right is not disproportionate to the purpose of the law ..." Further, in the case of CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, [(2019) SCC OnLine SC 1459], the meaning of proportionality was explained as: "225. It is also crucial for the standard of proportionality to be applied to ensure that neither right is restricted to a greater extent than necessary to fulfil the legitimate interest of the countervailing interest in question ..."
The proportionality principle can be easily summarized by Lord Diplock's aphorism "you must not use a steam hammer to crack a nut, if a nutcracker would do?' [Refer to R v. Goldsmith, [1983] 1 WLR 151, 155 (Diplock J)]. In other words, proportionality is all about means and ends. The suitability of proportionality analysis under Part III, needs to be observed herein. The nature of fundamental rights has been extensively commented upon. One view is that the fundamental rights apply as 'rules', wherein they apply in an 'all¬ or ¬nothing fashion'. This view is furthered by Ronald Dworkin, who argued in his theory that concept of a right implies its ability to trump over a public good. Dworkin‘s view necessarily means that the rights themselves are the end, which cannot be derogated as they represent the highest norm under the Constitution. This would imply that if the legislature or executive act in a particular manner, in derogation of the right, with an object of achieving public good, they shall be prohibited from doing so if the aforesaid action requires restriction of a right. However, while such an approach is often taken by American Courts, the same may not be completely suitable in the Indian context, having regard to the structure of Part III which comes with inbuilt restrictions.
Source: Excerpt taken from a judgment delivered by the bench of N. V. Ramanna, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, J.J. on 10 th January, 2020.
The above passage has been taken from which of the following judgments, which decided the state of affairs relating to internet ban in Jammu & Kashmir?
The above passage discusses about the proportionality, in the context of which of the following issues?
In the above passage, the Court expresses the limitations on application of 'All-or- nothing‘ approach to the fundamental rights. Which of the following statements truly explains such limitations?
In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that Right to Access Internet is protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution?
Which of the following is not an essential, validating the restrictions imposed upon the exercise of Fundamental Rights?
The Right to Access to the internet is useful for exercising which of the following Fundamental Rights?
Who amongst the following can order for suspension of telecom services in a state under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017?
Which of the following was true prior to 5 th August, 2019 in relation to power of the Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution for the State of Jammu & Kashmir?
Which of the following is not true in relation to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019?
Day-wise Structured & Planned Preparation Guide
By proceeding you agree to create your account
Free CAT Schedule PDF will be sent to your email address soon !!!
