Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
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.