Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proportionality test, after originating in German administrative law and in Canada, has received enormous success the world over in the area of constitutional rights adjudication. Burden of proof is an important aspect of any area of law, as it has a decisive effect on the outcome of cases. Under constitutional law, as a part of the proportionality principle, it impacts the protection of constitutional rights. This paper seeks to examine the role of the principle of proportionality both in doctrinal discussion and in sceptical accounts of the Supreme Court of India’s emphasis on the principle, specifically from the perspective of burden of proof. I scrutinize Justice Barak’s analysis of burden of proof as a part of the necessity stage of the proportionality test and then illustrate the divergence in court practice in India. I conclude that although the Supreme Court recognises proportionality as the new standard of review, the inconsistency in its application, specifically on burden of proof, and the attitude of deference to the State result in insufficient protection against rights violations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".