Doctrine of Proportionality - Indian Laws - General

Doctrine of Proportionality In the case of Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and Another- 2007 (4) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT, this court considered the doctrine of proportionality and it was held : 17. So far as the doctrine of proportionality is concerned, there is no gainsaying that the said doctrine has not only arrived in our legal system but has come to stay. With the rapid growth of administrative law and the need and necessity to control possible abuse of discretionary powers by various administrative authorities, certain principles have been evolved by courts. If an action taken by any authority is contrary to law, improper, irrational or otherwise unreasonable, a court of law can interfere with such action by exercising power of judicial review. One of such modes of exercising power, known to law is the doctrine of proportionality . 18. Proportionality is a principle where the court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case . The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise--the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities. 19. de Smith states that proportionality involves balancing test and necessity test . Whereas the former (balancing test) permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations, the latter (necessity test) requires infringement of human rights to the least restrictive alternative. [Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1995), pp. 601-05, para 13.085; see also Wade Forsyth: Administrative Law (2005), p. 366.] 20. In Halsbury s Laws of England (4th Edn.), Reissue, Vol. 1(1), pp. 144-45, para 78, it is stated: The court will quash exercise of discretionary powers in which there is no reasonable relationship between the objective which is sought to be achieved and the means used to that end, or where punishments imposed by administrative bodies or inferior courts are wholly out of proportion to the relevant misconduct. The principle of proportionality is (2007) 4 SCC 669 well established in European law, and will be applied by English courts where European law is enforceable in the domestic courts. The principle of proportionality is still at a stage of development in English law; lack of proportionality is not usually treated as a separate ground for review in English law, but is regarded as one indication of manifest unreasonableness. 21. The doctrine has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without abuse of discretion. There can be no pick and choose , selective applicability of the government norms or unfairness, arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It is not permissible to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut . As has been said many a time; where paring knife suffices, battle axe is precluded . 22. In the celebrated decision of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for Civil Service(1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL) Lord Diplock proclaimed: (All ER p. 950h-j) Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call `illegality , the second `irrationality and the third `procedural impropriety . That is not to say that further development on a case -by- case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of `proportionality .... (emphasis supplied) 23. CCSU has been reiterated by English courts in several subsequent cases. We do not think it necessary to refer to all those cases. 24. So far as our legal system is concerned, the doctrine is well settled. Even prior to CCSU, this Court has held that if punishment imposed on an employee by an employer is grossly excessive, disproportionately high or unduly harsh, it cannot claim immunity from judicial scrutiny, and it is always open to a court to interfere with such penalty in appropriate cases. 25. In Hind Construction Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 917), some workers remained absent from duty treating a particular day as holiday. They were dismissed from service. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the action. This Court held that the absence could have been treated as leave without pay. The workmen might have been warned and fined. (But) It is impossible to think that any other reasonable employer would have imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its entire permanent staff in this manner. (AIR p. 919, para 7) (emphasis supplied) The Court concluded that the punishment imposed on the workmen was not only severe and out of proportion to the fault, but one which, in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed . (AIR pp. 919-20, para 7) (emphasis supplied) 26. In Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry v. Workmen [(1972) 1 SCC 40], the allegation against the employee of the Federation was that he issued legal notices to the Federation and to the International Chamber of Commerce which brought discredit to the Federation--the employer. Domestic inquiry was held against the employee and his services were terminated. The punishment was held to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and established. This Court observed that: (SCC p. 62, para 34) [T]he Federation had made a mountain out of a mole hill and made a trivial matter into one involving loss of its prestige and reputation. 27. In Ranjit Thakur referred to earlier, an army officer did not obey the lawful command of his superior officer by not eating food offered to him. Court-martial proceedings were initiated and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year was imposed. He was also dismissed from service, with added disqualification that he would be unfit for future employment. 28. Applying the doctrine of proportionality and following CCSU, Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed: (SCC p. 620, para 25) The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well recognized concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, COAL INDIA LIMITED- 2009 (8) TMI 1130 - SUPREME COURT