Om Kumar v Union of India

• Government officer challenged compulsory retirement order under FR 56(j)
• Challenge raised both fundamental rights (Art.14: arbitrary) and administrative law grounds
• Court examined whether Indian law should adopt proportionality as a general standard or retain Wednesbury

1. Whether Indian courts should adopt proportionality as the standard of judicial review?
2. What is the relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury in Indian administrative law?

• India adopts a dual standard (not replacing Wednesbury with proportionality entirely):
• Where fundamental rights (Art.14/19/21) are directly engaged: proportionality applies; court examines whether restriction is proportionate to legitimate aim (necessity + balance)
• Where no fundamental rights involved: Wednesbury applies; court intervenes only if decision is so unreasonable that no rational authority could reach it
• Proportionality is a stricter standard (examines necessity and alternatives); Wednesbury is more deferential
• Both co-exist in Indian administrative law depending on context

The intensity of judicial review varies with what is at stake. When fundamental rights are threatened by administrative action, courts must examine whether the interference is proportionate: are there less restrictive alternatives? Is the measure necessary? Is the balance between individual harm and public benefit acceptable? But for routine administrative decisions not engaging constitutional rights, the deferential Wednesbury standard preserves administrative autonomy and expertise.