Source: Indian Express

Introduction

In a landmark decision, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, unanimously invalidated the electoral bonds scheme. This watershed moment underscores the critical role of the proportionality test in safeguarding constitutional freedoms. The SC gave this judgment in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Justice Sanjiv Khanna authored concurring yet separate individual opinion concerning the test of proportionality.

What is Proportionality Test?

• Constitutional Position:
  • At the heart of the judicial review lies the principle of proportionality, assessing whether state interventions justifiably align with constitutional goals while respecting individual rights.
  • Enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, this test ensures that limitations on fundamental freedoms remain proportional to the state's objectives.
• Concept of Test of Proportionality:
  • Proportionality, as a standard-based model, grants judges flexibility in analyzing diverse factual scenarios against established standards.
  • Critics of proportionality, favoring rule-based adjudication, argue for legal certainty inherent in definitive rules.
  • In response, proponents of balancing assert that neither rules nor principles are absolute, advocating for a balance between rights and legislation.
• Application of Test:
  • Justice Sanjeev Khanna, in his analysis, rejected donor anonymity as a legitimate state interest, prioritizing voters' right to know over secrecy in political funding.
  • CJI D Y Chandrachud expanded the discourse by introducing the "double proportionality" test, emphasizing the need to balance competing fundamental rights.
  • Generally, two models can be differentiated from works of jurists.
• Models of Test in Judgment:
  • This clash is evident in varying forms of proportionality adoptions, notably Model I and Model II.
  • Model I entails a two-stage means-end comparison, while Model II adds a balancing stage.

What was the Precedent cited in the Case?

• In the seminal Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) ruling of 2017, the SC enshrined the proportionality test as a guiding principle for resolving disputes involving rights conflicts.
• Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul outlined four criteria s, emphasizing the need for state actions to balance legitimate aims with individual liberties.
  • Legality,
  • Necessity,
  • Proportionality, and
  • Procedural Safeguard

What were Government's Argument?

• The government asserted that curbing black money and safeguarding donor privacy justified the electoral bonds scheme.
• While acknowledging these objectives, the court scrutinized the extent of state interference, particularly concerning voter transparency and accountability.

What is "Least Restrictive Means"?

• CJI D Y Chandrachud emphasized the necessity of exploring less intrusive alternatives, such as the electoral trusts scheme, to achieve the state's objectives effectively.
• By scrutinizing the impact of state actions on individual rights, the court underscored the imperative of adopting the least restrictive methods in policy implementation.

Conclusion

The electoral bonds verdict reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to uphold fundamental freedoms while promoting accountability and transparency in the electoral process. By applying the proportionality test, the SC ensures that state actions remain consonant with constitutional values, heralding a new era of democratic governance and constitutionalism.