PROPORTIONALITY AND WEDNESBURY

Proportionality and Wednesbury

Proportionality and Wednesbury

Introduction

Proportionality is a more precise and sophisticated test than Wednesbury unreasonableness as a standard of review. It allows a greater control of public decision makers by the courts. Doctrine of proportionality signifies that administrative action should not be more drastic than it ought to be for obtaining desired result. The doctrine is of European origin and is very entrenched in the European Droid Administrative. The principle of proportionality has been characterized as the most important legal principle in the European Administrative Law.

According to the principle of proportionality the public authority should maintain a link between his individual and collective goals; and to seek ways of obtaining those goals within some reasonable limitations. This could ensure supreme public interest. The law maintains that nobody should be harmed by the unlawful use of power. Hence it imposes certain restrictions on the ways and means of exercising super power or a powerful authority. The conducts of such an individual should not violate actions that are interlinked with the general public interests. Hence administrative roles should be monitored and self governed to an extent that they do not hamper the interests of the community while being sufficiently authoritative and successful.

Advantages and Disadvantages of an Administrative Action.

Only if the balance is advantageous, will the court uphold the administrative action. The administration must draw a balance-sheet of the pros and cons involved in any decision of consequence to the public and to individuals. The principle of proportionality envisages that an administrative action could be quashed of it was disproportionate to the mischief at which it was aimed. The measures adopted by the administration must be proportionate to the pursued objective. All in all, it means that the decision maker must have a sense of proportion. Thus the doctrine tries to balance means with ends. Proportionality shares space with reasonableness and courts while exercising power of review sees it as a course of action that could have been followed.

Administrative action affecting fundamental freedoms have always been tested on the anvil of proportionality. Proportionality also emphasizes upon the fundamental rights as measured by the administrator so that each member of the community is equal and justice can prevail. The aims of administrative order should be in coherence with the overall objective of the community or organization and must not divert from the general acceptable practices. The legislature and the administrative authority are given an area of discretion or a range of choice but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is for the court to decide. This is the principle of proportionality.

The Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation were disproportionate to the situation and were not the least restrictive of the choices. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation is the English law case which dismissed the exercise of unreasonableness of public body decisions which makes them liable to be annulled on further judicial ...