Indian courts have increasingly applied the proportionality test instead of Wednesbury unreasonableness for reviewing administrative actions affecting fundamental rights, allowing more intensive scrutiny of whether restrictions are justified.
- True
- False
Answer: True
Proportionality vs Wednesbury evolution: (a) Wednesbury unreasonableness (high deference): Courts intervene only if decision so irrational no reasonable authority could make it, (b) Proportionality test (intensive scrutiny): Four-step analysis — (i) Legitimate aim, (ii) Rational connection, (iii) Necessity (least restrictive alternative), (iv) Balancing benefits vs harms, (c) Indian adoption: Puttaswamy (2017), Anuradha Bhasin (2020) applied proportionality to privacy, digital rights cases, (d) Rationale: Fundamental rights require stricter scrutiny than policy/economic decisions; proportionality enables calibrated review respecting separation of powers while protecting rights. Illustrates judicial review evolution: from deference to calibrated scrutiny for rights-affecting actions.