Punishment Fits the Crime: Wednesbury Principle and Proportionality in IC’s Recommendations
Introduction
What happens when you use a sledgehammer to crack a nut or when you use a cannon to shoot a sparrow? Do either of the acts appear reasonable to achieve the end goal?
The Supreme Court of India, in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Employees Association[1], held that the court would not allow administration to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut where a paring knife would suffice. With this observation, the Hon’ble Court recapitulated Lord Diplock’s definition of “proportionality[2]” and accepted it as a legal principle.
Internal Committee (“IC”) members are not only advised, but also trained, to follow doctrine of proportionality while determining the quantum of punishment. Any penalty imposed without balancing its effect with the gravity of misconduct is likely to be set aside by an appellate authority.
Recently, in X v. Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai (MNLU) & Ors[3], a student’s indefinite expulsion was being argued before the Bombay High Court. The advocate, appearing for the aggrieved person whose complaint led a POSH inquiry (under Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013) against the student, contended that the court did not have jurisdiction to intervene with the punishment because the penalty did not suffer any unreasonableness recognized by Wednesbury principles.
What is Wednesbury unreasonableness and how does it relate to doctrine of proportionality? This article answers all queries related to these two legal principles in reference to IC’s obligations under the POSH Act and Rules.
What is Wednesbury Unreasonableness?
Wednesbury unreasonableness emerged as a common law concept from the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation[4].
Lord Diplock summarised that this doctrine is applicable where a decision is so outrageous that it defies logic and/or accepted moral standards and that no sensible person, who has applied his mind to the question, could have arrived at it[5].
This principle is largely adopted by common law countries, including India, as a tool to analyse whether executive action is arbitrary or irrational.
In Administrative Law and Judicial Review of Administrative Action[6], Justice Markandey Katju opined:
“A person entrusted with discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his attention to matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules he may truly be said to be acting unreasonably. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.”
Justice Katju’s interpretation breaks down the principle into three indications of an unreasonable decision. These indications are:
(a) The decision is based on wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration,
(b) The decision has ignored a very relevant material which it should have taken into consideration, or,
(c) The decision is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached to it[7].
Wednesbury Unreasonableness & Doctrine of Proportionality in India
While doctrine of proportionality appears to be a substitute for Wednesbury unreasonableness, it is not the case. If the two needs to be compared, then it can be said that proportionality in India is a modified version of the Wednesbury principle.
The Supreme Court of India introduced the doctrine of proportionality in Union of India vs G. Ganayutham[8], when it held Wednesbury unreasonableness to be the guiding principle in India. However, it ended up mentioning that it would not be applicable if fundamental rights are involved.
Further down the years, certain fundamental rights violation was also brought within its purview in the case of Om Kumar vs Union of India[9] . In this judgement, Supreme Court reconsidered its stance and held that executive action or decision that infringe Article 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution will have to undergo the test of proportionality.
A few judgements, around 2006-2007, also identified that “doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to doctrine of proportionality”[10].
Finally, Supreme Court expressly accepted the doctrine of proportionality in Sandeep Subhash Parate vs State of Maharashtra[11].
Wednesbury principle sets a standard of reasonableness required to be maintained by decision making authority while determining the outcome. However, doctrine of proportionality allows for a higher scrutiny under judicial review, i.e., besides checking for reasonableness, it also ensures the balance between pros and cons of the decision.
For instance, in the case of X v. Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai (MLNU) & Ors.[12], a student accused of sexual harassment on multiple occasions had been expelled for an indefinite time based on IC’s recommendation.
Read more: Disproportionate Punishment of Indefinite Expulsion Will Result in “Academic Death”: Bombay HC [AB1]
While the Bombay High Court acknowledged the student’s acceptance of IC’s recommendations, it also considered that he was a final year student. The Hon’ble Bench opined that if the expulsion operates for time indefinite, it will lead to academic death of the student, and he will not be able to pursue his career in law further.
However, contemplating on University’s need to maintain discipline and the plight of the complainant, the High Court upheld the expulsion. But it struck a balance between Institution’s standard of discipline and the student’s right to education by reducing the time of operation for the expulsion from an indefinite period to one year.
Proportionality in IC Recommendations
Bombay High Court, in Vidya Akhave vs Union of India and Others[13], held that it would not interfere with punishment imposed by Internal Committee (“IC”), unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. The Bench involved in this matter referred to Om Kumar v. Union of India[14] where the Supreme Court had relied on Wednesbury principles and doctrine of proportionality.
The High Court further elucidated that IC’s order of punishment would be “shockingly disproportionate” if:
Recommended by LinkedIn
(a) Order is contrary to the law,
(b) Relevant factors were not considered,
(c) Irrelevant factors were considered,
(d) No reasonable person would have taken such a decision[15].
Conclusion
Doctrine of proportionality and Wednesbury Principles form jurisprudential essence of natural justice principles[16]. The application of these principles enables courts to ensure that the decision is fair, unbiased and reasonable. In other words, it assures the court that the decision is in line with principles of natural justice.
As per Rule 7 (4) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Rules 2013, it is mandatory for IC to conduct POSH inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice.
A shockingly disproportionate penalty allows an appellant to question the IC’s report and recommendations on two grounds— (i) procedural lapse (consideration of irrelevant and non-consideration of relevant grounds), and (ii) IC’s biasedness. If the appellant succeeds in proving either of the grounds, the court is likely to hold the IC inquiry to be in violation of principles of natural justice.
Therefore, while deciding on the recommendation, IC members need to keep in mind:
(i) All relevant factors are adequately considered.
(ii) Punishment imposed is necessary to achieve the desired outcomes.
(iii) Order of punishment is reasonable and balances possible adverse effects of the decision on rights, liberties and interest of the person affected by the decision.
Authored By— Ayush Mita Bardhan , Trainee Associate, The Legal Swan
[1] (2007) 4 SCC 669
[3] Writ Petition (Lodging) No.21030 of 2024
[4] [1948] 1 K.B. 223
[5] Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Services (1984) 3 All ER 935
[6] (2005) 8 SCC (J) 25
[8] (1997) 7 SCC 463
[9] AIR 2000 SC 3689
[10] State of UP v Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava (2006) 3 SCC 276 & Indian Airlines Ltd v Praba D Kanan AIR 2007 SC 548
[11] (2006) 7 SCC 501
[12] Supra Note. 3
[13] (2016) 6 AIR Bom R 506
[14] Supra Note. 8