The Incoherent Concept of 'Proportionality' under Article 21
cpc judiciary advanced concept_confusionI'm totally scratching my head here - what exactly is the court's take on proportionality in Article 21? I mean, on one hand, it's all about balancing individual rights with the greater good, but on the other, it's super vague. Take the Romila Thapar case, for instance - the court held that the restrictions placed on her by the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) were proportionate to the threat posed by her, but only because the government couldn't provide any concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
BUT, if I'm not mistaken, the Apex Court has also held in other cases that the state can't justify a restriction on fundamental rights by merely citing national security or public order as the ground. So, what's the benchmark for proportionality?
2 Comments
Bhai, article 21's proportionality test is super tricky. I think it's high time we revisited the whole concept. It's like, how do we even define proportionality? Is it a binary test or a sliding scale? And what about the balance between individual rights and societal needs? Can we have a clear-cut framework for this? Let's discuss!
Mujhe lagta hai ki proportionality ki baat karte samay humhare judges aapko confuse karne ke liye try karte hain. Article 21 mein proportionality ki shuddhi se pehle humhare judges ko yeh dhyan dena chahiye ki case-to-case basis par kaunse factors ko consider kiya ja raha hai. Aur phir bhi, unka proportionality ka concept bahut hi vague hai, jisse iska maana lagaana mushkil hota hai.