This note examines the Supreme Court’s approach to resolving conflicts between fundamental rights, particularly after the recent Electoral Bonds decision. The ‘double-proportionality test’, while an improvement, lacks a doctrinal foundation and can led to arbitrary decisions on constitutional questions. There are several issues with the Indian judiciary’s methodology to determine a conflict of rights, leading to a risk of arbitrary judicial policymaking. The note identifies key issues in Indian jurisprudence, including the absence of an objective metric to determine a conflict between fundamental rights as well as a context-specific approach to resolving them. The note proposes a criteria for determining genuine conflicts and the need for contextualisation when carrying out any balancing exercise. This note advocates for a structured and principled approach to adjudicating conflicts between fundamental rights, prioritising contextual analysis over abstract value judgement.
