Analysing Law Of Sedition Through The Lens Of The Doctrine Of Proportionality

Vidushi Jain, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Symbiosis Law School, Pune

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Court of India has maintained that a measure that restricts a basic right should bear a proportionate link to the right since the very beginning of India's constitutional republic. However, the Court has only recently developed a formal four-part proportionality test to examine the constitutionality of rights restriction legislation, beginning in 2016 with Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh.1 This paper examines the intricate connection between sedition laws and the notion of proportionality with an emphasis on judging the fairness and constitutionality of such legislation in the context of basic rights and state interests. In order to assess the effectiveness of the doctrine of proportionality as a tool for striking a balance between upholding national security concerns and defending people's rights to free expression, the analysis includes a thorough examination of significant cases, legal principles, and comparative approaches. The paper also discusses difficulties and potential consequences for legal reforms. The proportionality doctrine makes sure that administrative actions don't interfere with individuals' rights and that there is a balance between the two in order to determine whether legal requirements are followed. Although the Wednesbury unreasonableness concept may have been more widely used in the past, the proportionality doctrine, which maintains a proper balance between factors that affect administrative decisions, is now frequently used to replace it.

Keywords: Dissent, Proportionality, Balance, Absolute, Draconian