The term “tax” originates from the Latin word “taxo,” which means “to estimate.” To levy a tax is to impose a financial obligation or levy on a taxpayer, whether an individual or a legal entity, by a governing authority such as a state or its equivalent administrative body.
According to Prof Seligman – A tax is compulsory contribution from the person to the government to defray the expense incurred in the common interest of all without reference to special benefits conferred. According to Bastable – A tax as a compulsory contribution of the wealth of a person, or body of persons for the service of public powers.
kinds of taxes:
Direct taxes are those taxes that are directly levied on individuals or entities based on their income, wealth, or other financial transactions. The burden of direct taxes cannot be shifted to someone else. Examples include Income Tax, where individuals or businesses are taxed based on their income, and Wealth Tax, which is levied on the net wealth of individuals or entities.
Indirect Taxes, on the other hand, are imposed on the price of goods or services rather than directly on individuals or entities. The person who pays the indirect tax can shift the burden of the tax onto another person, typically the consumer. Examples of indirect taxes include Goods and Services Tax (GST), which is levied on the sale of goods and services at each stage of production and distribution, and Customs Duty, which is a tax imposed on goods imported into a country.
Merits of Direct Tax
Equity: Direct taxes exhibit equity of sacrifice as they are based on the principle of progressivity, meaning that tax rates increase as the level of income rises. This ensures that individuals with higher incomes contribute a larger proportion of their earnings towards taxes, thus reducing income inequality to some extent.
Elasticity and Productivity: Direct taxes demonstrate elasticity as the government can adjust tax rates or impose new taxes in times of emergency, such as natural disasters or economic crises, to generate revenue quickly. This flexibility allows the government to respond effectively to unforeseen circumstances.
Certainty: Direct taxes offer certainty for both taxpayers and the government. Taxpayers are aware of the amount of tax they are required to pay, as well as the time, manner, and consequences of non-payment. Similarly, the government can accurately predict the revenue it will receive from direct taxes, facilitating effective budget planning and resource allocation.
Reduce Inequality: Direct taxes contribute to reducing income inequality by following progressive principles. By imposing higher tax rates on individuals with higher incomes and lower rates on those with lower incomes, direct taxes help redistribute wealth and promote a more equitable distribution of resources within society.
Effective Tool Against Inflation: Direct taxes can be utilized as a fiscal instrument to combat inflation. By adjusting tax rates or introducing new taxes, the government can absorb excess money in the economy, thereby helping to stabilize prices and control inflationary pressures.
Simplicity: Direct taxes are generally considered to be simpler than indirect taxes in terms of levy rules, procedures, and regulations. The income tax system, for example, often has clear and straightforward guidelines for taxpayers to follow, which can help reduce compliance costs and administrative burden.
Demerits of Direct Taxes
Evasion: Direct taxes, being levied on income, can sometimes lead to tax evasion as taxpayers may attempt to underreport their income or engage in other forms of non-compliance to reduce their tax liability. This evasion can be more prevalent due to the relatively larger sums involved compared to indirect taxes.
Uneconomical Collection: Direct taxes often require a widespread administrative infrastructure for collection, leading to higher administrative expenses. This can be attributed to the need for a larger staff and more resources to administer and enforce compliance with direct tax laws.
Unpopularity: Direct taxes are typically paid in lump sums, which can be perceived as burdensome by taxpayers. This lump-sum payment can lead to discontent among taxpayers, making direct taxes less popular compared to taxes that are paid in smaller, more frequent installments.
Reduced Incentive to Work and Save: The progressive nature of direct taxes, where higher earners are taxed at higher rates, can create disincentives for individuals to work hard and save money. As individuals reach higher income brackets, they may feel that the marginal benefit of their additional earnings is diminished due to higher tax rates.
Suitability for Poor Countries: Direct taxes may not be sufficient to meet the revenue needs of a poor country, particularly if a significant portion of the population earns low incomes or operates in the informal economy where income is difficult to tax effectively.
Arbitrariness: The degree of progression in direct taxation, i.e., how tax rates increase with income, may lack a clear logical or scientific basis. This perceived arbitrariness can lead to dissatisfaction among taxpayers and uncertainty regarding the fairness of the tax system.
Merits of Indirect Taxes
High Revenue Production: Indirect taxes are imposed on a wide range of goods and services, including both essential items and luxury goods. This broad coverage allows governments to collect significant revenue since these goods are consumed by a large portion of the population, regardless of their income level.
No Evasion: Because indirect taxes are embedded in the price of goods and services, it can be difficult for individuals or businesses to evade or avoid paying them. This inherent inclusion in the price helps ensure a more consistent collection of taxes.
Convenience: Indirect taxes are often small amounts that are integrated into the price of goods and services. Since they are not directly visible to consumers as separate payments, the burden of these taxes may not be felt as acutely by taxpayers compared to lump-sum direct taxes.
Economic Collection: Indirect taxes are generally more cost-effective to collect compared to direct taxes. The administrative costs associated with collecting indirect taxes are often lower, and the procedures for collection are typically simpler, contributing to overall efficiency in tax administration.
Wide Coverage: Indirect taxes can be applied to a broad range of commodities, including essential goods, luxury items, and even harmful products like tobacco or alcohol. This wide coverage ensures that a diverse array of economic activities contributes to government revenue.
Elasticity: The scope for modifying indirect taxes is quite extensive due to the broad range of goods and services covered. Governments can adjust tax rates and apply taxes selectively based on the nature of goods, consumer demand, and economic conditions, providing flexibility in revenue management and economic policy.
Demerits of Indirect Taxes
Regressive in Effect: Indirect taxes tend to have a regressive effect as they are applied uniformly to essential commodities that are consumed by individuals across all income levels. This means that lower-income individuals end up spending a larger proportion of their income on these taxed essentials, compared to higher-income individuals. As a result, the tax burden disproportionately impacts those with lower incomes.
Uncertainty in Collection: Indirect taxes are collected when individuals spend their income on goods and services, making it challenging for tax authorities to accurately estimate total tax revenue from various indirect taxes. This uncertainty in collection can pose challenges for budget planning and revenue forecasting.
Discouragement of Savings and Increased Inflation: Indirect taxes, being embedded in the prices of goods and services, lead to higher costs for essential commodities. This can reduce individuals’ ability to save money, as more of their income is spent on taxed goods. Additionally, the increased costs of production due to indirect taxes can contribute to inflationary pressures, as producers may pass on these higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Inflationary Pressure: Indirect taxes can lead to an increase in production costs, as taxes on inputs and outputs raise the overall cost of production for businesses. This increase in production costs may result in higher prices for goods and services, which can contribute to inflation. Additionally, higher prices may lead to demands for increased wages by workers to maintain their purchasing power, further contributing to inflationary pressures in the economy.
Heads of Income:
Heads of Income: Income under the Income Tax Act is categorized into various heads to determine the applicable tax treatment. In India, there are five heads of income.
Income from Salary: This includes any remuneration received by an individual for services rendered under an employer-employee relationship. It encompasses wages, bonuses, commissions, perquisites, and other benefits received by an employee.
Income from House Property: This head includes rental income derived from owning property, such as houses, buildings, land, or any rights in or over such property. The taxable income is computed after deducting permissible expenses like property taxes, municipal taxes, and standard deductions.
Profits and Gains of Business or Profession: This head covers income generated from carrying on a business or profession. It includes profits from trading, manufacturing, rendering services, or any commercial activity. The taxable income is computed after deducting allowable business expenses.
Income from Capital Gains: Capital gains arise when a capital asset (like stocks, bonds, real estate) is sold at a profit. The Income Tax Act differentiates between short-term and long-term capital gains based on the holding period of the asset. Various exemptions and deductions may apply to reduce the taxable portion of capital gains.
Income from Other Sources: This head encompasses income that doesn’t fall under the other four heads. It includes interest income, dividend income, winnings from lotteries or gambling, gifts exceeding specified limits, etc. The taxable income is computed after deducting certain expenses and exemptions.
Each head of income has its own set of rules, exemptions, deductions, and tax rates specified under the Income Tax Act. Taxpayers are required to compute their total income by aggregating income from all heads and apply relevant provisions to calculate the tax liability.
The principle of legitimate expectations means that expectations raised by administrative conduct have to be respected and fulfilled, at least for the public interest, unless betterment demands otherwise. And non-fulfillment can have some serious legal consequences. The main role played by the courts in the entire transaction of this doctrine is to safeguard individuals’ expectations in the face of changes in policy.
Legitimate expectation is a concept in administrative law that refers to the reasonable expectation of a person or a group of people to be treated in a certain way by a public authority, such as a government agency or a court. Legitimate expectations can arise from:
An express promise or assurance made by the authority.
A regular practice or policy of the authority.
A legal provision or a general principle of law.
Legitimate expectations can be classified into two types:
Procedural legitimate expectation: This is the expectation of a fair and transparent process before a decision affecting one’s rights or interests is made by the authority. For example, a person may have a legitimate expectation to be given a hearing or a notice before their license is revoked.
Substantive legitimate expectation: This is the expectation of a favorable outcome or a benefit from the authority based on its promise, practice, or policy. For example, a person may have a legitimate expectation to receive a grant or a subsidy if they meet the eligibility criteria.
Legitimate expectation is not an absolute right but a ground for judicial review of administrative actions. If the authority breaches the legitimate expectation of a person or a group of people, the court may intervene and order the authority to:
Fulfill the legitimate expectation.
Provide a valid justification for departing from the legitimate expectation.
Compensate the affected person or group for the loss or damage caused by the breach.
Legitimate expectation is a dynamic and evolving concept that aims to protect the interests of the people and promote good governance, accountability, and fairness in public administration.
Legitimate expectation under administrative law in India is similar to the concept in the UK, but with some differences. According to the Supreme Court of India, a legitimate expectation is:
A right that arises from the principles of natural justice, equity, and good conscience
A reasonable and rational expectation of a person or a group of people from a public authority based on its past actions, representations, or promises
A flexible and pragmatic tool to ensure fairness and justice in administrative actions
A ground for judicial review of administrative actions, but not a source of substantive rights
Some of the case laws that illustrate the concept of legitimate expectation in India are:
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their interests. The doctrine is based on the idea that a person who has a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from a public authority should not be disappointed by a sudden change of policy or action by the authority.
In India, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was first recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Union of India (1992), where the court held that the allottees of flats under a housing scheme had a legitimate expectation of getting possession of the flats as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, and any arbitrary cancellation of the allotment by the authority would violate their right to a fair hearing.
Some other cases where the doctrine of legitimate expectation was applied in India are:
Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993): The court held that the respondent company had a legitimate expectation of getting a renewal of its mining lease as per the previous practice of the government, and the government’s refusal to renew the lease without giving any reasons or hearing the company was arbitrary and unjust.
Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993): The court held that the appellant corporation had a legitimate expectation of getting a supply of rice bran from the respondent industry as per the agreement between them, and the industry’s unilateral termination of the agreement without any notice or opportunity to the corporation was illegal and unfair.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society (2013): The court held that the respondent society had a legitimate expectation of getting a lease of land from the appellant corporation as per the allotment letter issued by the corporation, and the corporation’s cancellation of the allotment on the ground of non-payment of dues without giving any notice or hearing to the society was violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Limitations or Restrictions of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
The restriction of legitimate expectation is a concept that limits the scope and application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative law. The doctrine of legitimate expectation grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their interests based on a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from the authority.
However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not an absolute or inflexible rule of law but a flexible and pragmatic tool of justice. It is subject to certain restrictions, such as:
The doctrine cannot override or contradict the statutory provisions or the public interest.
The doctrine cannot create a substantive right or entitlement that does not exist in law.
The doctrine cannot be invoked to challenge a policy decision or a legislative act of the government.
The doctrine cannot be based on an illegal, irrational, or unreasonable expectation.
The doctrine cannot be applied retrospectively to nullify a valid decision or action of the authority.
These restrictions are meant to balance the interests of the individual and the authority and to prevent the abuse or misuse of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Some of the cases where the restriction of legitimate expectation was applied are:
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Kant (1995): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to challenge the policy decision of the government to abolish the post of General Manager in the corporation, as it was a matter of public interest and administrative efficiency, and the petitioner had no legal right or entitlement to the post.
Reliance Energy Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (2007): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot create a substantive right or entitlement in favour of the respondent company to get the contract for the construction of a bridge, as it was subject to the statutory provisions and the competitive bidding process, and the appellant corporation had the discretion to award the contract to the best bidder.
State of Bihar vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be based on an illegal or irrational expectation, and the respondent company had no legitimate expectation of getting a renewal of its license to manufacture liquor, as it was contrary to the prohibition policy of the state government and the public interest.
I hope this helps you understand the restriction of legitimate expectation better. 😊
If you have any other questions or requests, please feel free to ask me. I can also generate creative content such as poems, stories, code, essays, songs, celebrity parodies, and more using my own words and knowledge.
Conclusion:
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their interests. The doctrine is based on the idea that a person who has a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from a public authority should not be disappointed by a sudden change of policy or action by the authority.
The doctrine of proportionality is applicable in cases where rights are violated by administrative action and the courts scrutinize administrative conduct specifically and go to court. Issue about the accuracy of the authority’s choices.
The ordinary sense of proportionality is that it should not be more extreme than it should be to achieve the desired results. It means you cannot use a canon to fire a sparrow. This philosophy, in other words, seeks to balance means with ends.
Irrationality as a ground and legitimate expectation to challenge any decision was developed by the Court in Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury, later to be known as the “Wednesbury test” to determine ‘irrationality’ of an administrative action decision of the administrative authority shall be deemed to be irrational.
if it is beyond the authority of law,
if it is not based on evidence,
if it is based on irrelevant consideration,
if it is so absurd in its violation of logic or established moral standards that no reasonable person may make such a decision on the facts and circumstances in question.
In other words, it is so ridiculous that no reasonable person would ever believe that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the government. In a practical sense, it is the use of the doctrine.
The doctrine of proportionality is a legal principle that states that the actions or measures taken by a public authority must be proportionate to the objective pursued. In other words, the authority should not use more force or impose more restrictions than necessary to achieve a legitimate goal.
The doctrine of proportionality is often applied in the fields of human rights, constitutional law, international law, and criminal law. For example, the European Court of Human Rights uses the doctrine of proportionality to assess whether the interference of a state with the rights and freedoms of individuals is justified and reasonable.
The doctrine of proportionality has four main components:
Suitability: The measure must be suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective.
Necessity: The measure must be necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective. There must be no less restrictive alternative available.
Proportionality in the strict sense: The measure must be proportional or balanced in relation to the objective. The benefits of the measure must outweigh the costs or harm to the rights and interests of the affected parties.
Fair balance: The measure must strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the individual rights of the persons concerned. The measure must not impose an excessive or disproportionate burden on individuals.
The theory of proportionality is applicable in cases where human freedoms are violated by administrative action. In such a case, the courts scrutinize administrative conduct specifically and go to court about the accuracy of the authority’s choices. Adverse effects on the right would therefore be weighed by the courts and the purpose sought to be accomplished, where the issue of the quantity of penalty levied by the regulatory authority is concerned, would not be subject to strict scrutiny. Courts follow the idea that while the quantity of punishment is beyond the regulatory authority’s control, it is important to prevent arbitrariness.
This concept can be called the’ deference concept, where the court shows consideration for the regulatory authority’s option except when the option is manifestly excessive.
When evaluating an administrative action on the grounds of proportionality Courts typically consider two issues, namely:
1. Whether the relative merits of specific objectives or interests have been properly weighed and equally balanced?
2. Whether the action under review was, in the circumstances, excessively restrictive or inflicted an unnecessary burden?
In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham(1997) 7 SCC 463, the Supreme Court held that rule of proportionality is fully applicable in constitutional adjudication where the court has to decide on the reasonableness of a restriction on the exercise of fundamental rights. However, its application in the field of administrative law is still in an evolving stage. At the present, the doctrine is not available in administrative law in the sense that the court cannot go into the question of choice made and priority fixed by the administrator.
Om Kumar v Union of India (2001): This case concerned the fundamental right to equality and the power of judicial review. Om Kumar and other employees of the public sector undertakings challenged the government’s decision to reduce their salaries and allowances as part of a financial restructuring plan. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to equality, as it was not proportionate to the objective of reviving the public sector undertakings. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective, as it did not take into account the performance and efficiency of the employees. The court also found that the government’s decision was not necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective, as there were other less drastic measures available, such as reducing the managerial staff, improving the productivity, and enhancing the competitiveness. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportional or balanced in relation to the objective, as it imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on the employees, who were already underpaid and overworked.
State of Maharashtra v Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008): This case concerned the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the power of preventive detention. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and other film producers and distributors challenged the government’s decision to detain them under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), alleging that they had links with the underworld and were involved in financing terrorist activities. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression, as it was not proportionate to the objective of preventing terrorism. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not rationally connected to the objective, as it did not have any credible evidence or material to support the allegations against the detainees. The court also found that the government’s decision was not minimally impairing, as it used the most drastic and draconian measure of preventive detention, without exhausting the other legal remedies available, such as investigation, prosecution, and trial. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportionate in its effects, as it caused severe and irreparable harm to the detainees’ reputation, livelihood, and liberty.
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020): This case concerned the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to access the internet. Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of Kashmir Times, and other petitioners challenged the government’s decision to impose a complete shutdown of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir, following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the state. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to access the internet, as it was not proportionate to the objective of maintaining public order and national security. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective, as it was not based on any specific threat or exigency, but on a general apprehension of violence. The court also found that the government’s decision was not necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective, as there were other less restrictive measures available, such as blocking specific websites, imposing reasonable restrictions on the duration and area of the shutdown, and providing periodic review and oversight. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportional or balanced in relation to the objective, as it caused immense and indiscriminate hardship to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who were deprived of their fundamental rights, essential services, and economic opportunities.
In a democracy, people are given power to pursue a high standard of living. The democratic ideals of equality, freedom, and justice can be attained with the help of experts and a working knowledge of the administrative system. The Indian Constitution calls for a well-organized administrative apparatus. The individuals in charge of running the government’s everyday operations are a branch of it that is supported by the executive organ. Our nation’s civil services system serves as the framework for this apparatus. The bureaucracy is made up of all of these specially competent and educated executives. The Indian constitution’s Articles 308–311 describe the duties and responsibilities of these civil officers.
Professionally, it is the job of the administrative apparatus to monitor how the federal and state governments operate. The function that bureaucracy is supposed to play helps to simplify how complicated government is and how it operates. The administrative apparatus is absolutely necessary for the lives of citizens, aside from the policy advice they provide to the political leaders. India has chosen for a parliamentary style of government.
Political Accountability Towards the Government
Indian bureaucrats are expected to perform a dual role in terms of being accountable to both the Parliament as well as the citizens. Civil servants are obliged to ensure that the functioning of the government is based on the principles of democracy and transparency.
The Government of India has elucidated the role of ‘accountability’ of civil servants. The government is the primary object in determining the public interest. Civil servants are a driving force for the effective implementation of administrative measures.
These public officeholders are expected to be neutral in their work. Thus, they should restrict themselves from being biased towards the ruling party or the opposition. They assist the government and those in power to formulate and execute policies and programmes. The assistance is contingent on the constitutional and legal foundation defined by them.
For a successful democracy, there should be provisions available to prevent and further restrict any kind of political influence over the bureaucrats.
Advocating Public Interest
In countries as big as India, there are wide concerns and political anxieties over the transparency and honest implementation of policies. Public officials play an important role in creating a citizen-friendly environment.
Civil servants are responsive to the aspirations of the citizens. In exhibiting their professionalism, they ensure that the principle of equality is well synchronized in society. They are expected to respond and cater to the needs of weaker sections.
The three-tier system of the government allows the civil servants to check that the developmental task is carried out efficiently even in the remotest area. On the other hand, the decentralized administration of the Indian government has facilitated them to manage affairs related to law and order.
Implementing Development Plans
A contact and an interconnected network are set forth between the society and the State through the administrative machinery. This administrative machinery is a pivotal instrument. It helps in preparing policy proposals, determining as well as modifying suggestions and various approaches on the implementation front.
As an organization bound by the values of integrity, sincerity and stringency towards rules and regulation, political neutrality, or impartiality and vigilance, the bureaucrats ensure a smooth development process.
The centralized administration does not have the means nor the will to redress citizens’ matters related to personal significance. It is the part where the bureaucracy’s role is expanded. It provides an immediate opportunity for citizens and redresses their personal grievances.
Bureaucrats are responsible for putting the development roadmaps into action in the region they are posted in. They play the role of development officers, especially in the rural areas wherein they provide their valuable inputs to modernize the area.
Administrative Machinery And Citizens’ Right
Administrative machinery ensures that all citizens are highly equipped, secure and healthy in order to provide them a quality life. The bureaucrats are expected to be highly responsive to the basic needs of citizens including health and education.
It is an indispensable part on behalf of the civil servants to create an atmosphere of good governance. They are expected to suggest and implement legal and institutional reforms for the same. It is also important to note that good governance is characterized by the extent of citizenry participation, the level of transparency and the prevalence of human rights protection.
The administrative machinery is placed in charge of delivering services fairly and efficiently to the general public.
The elementary function of the state has always been to maintain internal order, promote unity and provide justice. The administrative machinery is a vital prerequisite in promoting the values of social justice, equality and freedom.
Democratic Safeguards By Bureaucracy
India, known to be a democratic state, often finds itself in a difficult position to promote equality and unity in a society divided by caste. At the same time, the national security and territorial integrity of the land have always been of core importance to the government since independence.
The administrative machinery has the obligation to promote and create conditions of tolerance and cooperation within the national borders. They are responsible to focus on weaker sections and promote communal harmony by providing facilities such as physical and health infrastructure.
Bureaucrats and civil servants are obliged to inform corrupt malpractices or any kind of illegal act committed by those who are in power. This improves the morale of people in a democracy and prevents the administrative system from unethicality.
Administrative machinery is essential for promoting effective administration, achieving many objectives of sustained political and economic development, and giving citizens a stable and good existence. The effectiveness of government policies and other activities can be increased by enacting changes like merit-based promotion and rewarding bureaucrats. In turn, this would foster trust among citizens and offer a foundation for a functioning democracy to emerge. The understanding and expertise of the components of the administrative machinery are crucial in the task of balancing economic progress and social justice. They play a vital part in responding to crises and situations like natural disasters or financial crises. The constitution has made reservation provisions for weaker sections such as SCs, STs, OBCs as well as women in public bureaucracy under Article 16(4). All in all, the backbone of the executive is crucial for democracy to function.
“The point in a case that determines the judgement” or “the principle that the case proves” is known as the ratio decidendi. Ratio Decindi is a legal principle that is drawn from and consistent with the legal arguments made in a decision that determine the case’s conclusion. In an ordinary sense, we refer to as ratio the reason behind the decision but actually, it is much more than that.
The reason in this regard is not merely applying the law to the facts and coming up with an order.
Ratio instead refers to the steps that are involved to resolve a dispute, this resolution must be directly related to the issue or issues that are at the core of the dispute at hand.
It must come from disputes of law, not disputes of fact.
Ratio Decidendi must be argued in court and the facts of the precedent case shape the level of generality to which the later courts decide the level of generality.
Ironically when a precedent has multiple reasons, all reasons are binding.
Ratio becomes a very powerful tool in the hands of a lawyer and that is why it becomes essential for him to comprehend it well.
To find the ratio in a judgement one looks at the abstract principles of law that have been applied to the facts of that particular case
Descriptive Ratio
The reasoning or logic that helped the court get to a decision is known as the descriptive ratio. It will be helpful in upcoming instances and is the original ratio.
In order to be used as a prescriptive ratio, the descriptive ratio is therefore somewhat altered by using the level of generality.
Prescriptive Ratio
The descriptive ratio is applied as a model in a subsequent situation using the prescriptive ratio. In terms of the law or the facts, no two instances are ever same.
As a result, there is a problem when the theory is used as it is explained in a later example.
Rules of Ratio Decidendi
Ratio decidendi can be determined in two ways. The traditional method is the first, while the inversion test is the second.
The conventional method specifies particular guidelines that must be adhered to in order to understand what makes up the ratio in any given judgement.
The following are the guidelines:
The ratio decidendi must be the result of a legal dispute.
The component must be required for determining list.
It must have been debated and decided after careful deliberation.
What is the importance of Ratio Decidendi?
Ratio decidendi is significant in legal precedents since it is the legal standard that supports the decision in a particular case.
As a result, it is regarded as the most important part of a judge’s address and sets the legal precedent for subsequent cases.
Case law, usually referred to as judicial precedent, has been and is now a key source of law.
Judges will be able to follow precedents established in earlier instances. Original, binding, and widespread precedents are the three different categories.
The Latin maxim, ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ is the principle of natural justice where every person gets a chance of being heard. The literal meaning of Audi Alteram Partem is to “hear the other side”. The meaning of the maxim itself says no person shall be condemned unheard. Hence, no case or judgment can be decided without listening to the point of another party.Since ancient times, the idea of natural justice has been given significant weight in our legal system. It stands for justice, equality, and reasonability in every administrative decision that affects a person’s right. One of the fundamental tenets of natural justice is that judgement shouldn’t be rendered until every party to a litigation has had a fair opportunity to state their case. To fulfil the goals of justice is the primary goal of this legal theory. This idea is sometimes referred to as the “Audi Alteram Partem” theory.
1. Notice: no decisions can be made during the course of judgement without providing a notice towards the parties denoting the relevant information like:
Date of hearing
Time of hearing
Place of hearing
Charges against the person
Jurisdiction under the case is filed
Both the parties should be aware of the information’s regarding the case. The order will be held invalid if any of this relevant information is not referred to in the notice.
In bagg caseA.I.R. 1960 S.C. 16 32 James Bagg, a Chief Burgess of Plymouth had been disfranchised for unbecoming conduct in as much as it was alleged that he had told the Mayor, ‘ you are a cozening knave. I will make thy neck crack’ and by ‘turning the hinder part of his body in an inhuman and uncivil manner’ towards the mayor, said, ‘come and kiss’ he was reinstated by mandamus as no notice or hearing was given to him before passing the impugned order.
2. Hearing: It is the fundamental aspect of Audi alteram partum to hear both sides before passing any judgements. The authorities are bounded to ensure that a fair chance is provided to the parties to defend themselves.
Harban Lal. v. commissioner A.I.R. 1973 Punj. 263 33 : in this case, it was stated that fair hearing is an essential ingredient of Audi alteram partum. It is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the parties are provided with an opportunity to attend a written or oral hearing.
3. Evidence: It is an important aspect during the course of the judgement. It is produced before the court during the presence of the parties and the decisions are made by the member of the judiciary or quasi-judicial authority.
In case of Keshav Mill Co. v. Union of India [1992] 2 SCC 206 the Supreme Court was not ready to lay down an inflexible rule that it was not necessary to show the report of enquiry committee to the affected person. The court made it clear that whether the report of the enquiry committee should be furnished or not depends in every individual case on merits of the case
4. Cross-Examination: The court, during a fair hearing may not be able to disclose the person concerned or the material taken against him, but should give him a chance to refute the evidence. The major question raised before the adjudicating authority is that the witness should be cross-examined or not.
Kanungo& co. V. collector of customs A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2136: in this case, the business property of an individual was searched and some watches were seized by police under the sea customs act. The person who provided the information wasn’t allowed for cross-examination. But here, the principle of natural justice isn’t violated in the case of goods seized under the sea customs act. Because natural justice doesn’t allow the concerned person to cross-examine against the witness.
5. Legal representation: In a fair hearing, representation through a lawyer is not considered to be mandatory. But in some cases, if legal representation is not allowed then it will amount to infringement of the rule of natural justice.
Krishna Chandra .V. Union of India A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1589 in this case, the party was denied legal representation and amounted to a violation of the law of natural justice as the party wasn’t able to understand the question of law effectively.
Exemptions
It is important to clarify that the word exception doesn’t mean the principles of natural justice and fair play will not be there. These exceptions only denote those conditions in which nothing Unfair will occur even if certain conditions of this maxim are relaxed. These conditions or exceptions are as follows:
1. Statutory Exclusions: in this case omission of the right of hearing will not amount to a violation of the rule of natural justice. Because here a statute can omit the rule of natural justice explicitly or implicitly but such statute might get challenged under article 14. So, the omission should be justifiable.
2. Legislative Functions: the rule of natural justice is not applicable to legislative actions because these policies under the rule are not subjected to a particular individual. An action is said to be legislative in nature, if it is not applicable to just one or two individuals. Similarly, the principles of natural justice can also be excluded from certain provisions of constitution as well. The application of natural justice is excluded from article 22, article 31(A),(B),(C) and 311(2) of the Indian constitution as a matter of policy. If the court found the application of legislative functions to be unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair, the court may scrap such provision under article 14 and article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Impracticability: the rule of natural justice can be followed when it is practical to follow it but in certain cases where it is impracticable to follow the rule of natural justice then it can be excluded.
4. Academic Evaluation: if the power of authority is completely administrative then the rule of natural justice can be excluded.
5. Interdisciplinary Action: no rule of natural justice applicable in any situations of interdisciplinary actions like suspension.
6. Relaxation In Cases Of Interim Preventive Action
The principle of natural justice can be relaxed in case of the order of the administration is a preventive or interim order. In the case of Abhay Kumar Vs. K.,Srinivasan, the university order debarred a student from entering the university and attending classes until criminal proceedings against him is settled in the court. The student challenged this step of the university on the ground of violation of natural justice. The court stated that the order is merely interim or temporary in nature with an objective to maintain peace on the campus, thus it can be excluded from the purview of natural justice.
7.Relaxation in Case of Statutory necessity or exception
As per this provision, if a person comes into a situation in which he is the single person to decide and make the decision on a matter, then we can’t question his decision on the ground of biasedness. This exception is very important for the working of the entire administration department.
8. Exclusion In Case Of Contractual Arrangement
If some parties mutually agreed to terminate some provisions of natural justice, then the court can intervene in that matter. In the case of the State of Gujarat V. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust, the court held that the principles of natural justice will not be attracted in case of any arrangement in the contractual field. The termination of an agreement is not a quasi-judicial function and it can’t be subject to the scrutiny of the judiciary.
Furthermore, In our legislative framework, there are certain statutes in which hearing is prohibited thus, the principle of natural justice can be relaxed.
Conclusion
The principle of natural justice has emerged since the beginning of mankind. The maxim “Audi Alteram Partem” is the foundation stone of natural justice. These advocates for the right of fair hearing in a trial to achieve justice in the true spirit. It includes the issuance of the notice, fair opportunity to present evidence, right to cross witness, etc. This maxim is based on the principle of just, fairness and equity. However, In certain extreme conditions, the elements of this maxim are relaxed. These conditions involve the state of emergency, impracticality, contractual arrangement, interim order etc. But it is specifically noted that fairness always remains there even though the provisions are relaxed.
The idea of the “Rule of Law,” made popular by A. V. Dicey, is one of the most important and well-liked ones in the entire globe, with the only purpose of protecting human rights. For example, a violation of the rule of law occurs when a victim of a crime is forced to drop their complaint against the offender or is threatened into refraining from seeking justice for the crime committed against them. Another example is when the legislature approves a law that in any way restricts or infringes upon a person’s fundamental rights, such as their freedom of speech and expression.
The reasoning behind the idea of “Rule of Law” is extremely fluid and has a perfect mechanism to control absolutism and anarchy by giving the law of the land the upper hand. Through the application of this principle, the peremptory use of power is avoided since the law created by legislative bodies after careful consideration and discussion takes precedence over all other powers. As a result, the rule of law supports and upholds democracy’s core values. Regarding the “Rule of Law”
“No man is above the law” means that everyone is subject to regular law and the authority of ordinary courts, regardless of rank or position. Until a man violates a law established by the ordinary court, he will not be entitled to any of his personal property. In accordance with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, “Every Man is Equal before the Law, No One is Above,”
When a court uses constitutional rights as the basis for its decision, it signifies that the constitution is not the source of those rights but rather the regulations or the court’s application of the law. The British constitution is the outcome of legal proceedings, and each right granted therein is determined and formed by one or more legal judgments.
Article 14 of the Constitution recognises the notion of the rule of law and its two basic tenets: no one is above the law, and no one is subject to punishment other than for breaking the law. The latter tenet mentioned above is not recognised by our constitution. Therefore, the first and second rules of dicey apply to the constitution, however our Indian system does not recognise the third rule of dicey. All laws passed by the legislature must comply with the Constitution’s requirements; if any laws are approved that go against those provisions, the Supreme Court will declare them to be null and void.
Basic Principles of Rule of Law
Law is supreme and nobody is above the law.
All the things should be done according to a law not as per whim.
No person should be suffered except for the breach of law.
Absence of arbitrary is the soul of the rule of law.
Equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
Speedy trial.
The fair and just procedure should be conducted.
Independent and impartial judiciary.
Origin and Evolution of Rule of Law
The idea of the “Rule of Law” is not new; rather, it has its roots in the 6th century BC, at the time of Plato and Aristotle. Greece and Rome engaged in a number of philosophical debates about the significance of law in society throughout this time. Plato acknowledged the idea that the law should be obeyed by the government in his work The Laws. His pupil Aristotle advanced this concept and improved it in The Politics, where he associated “rule of law” with logic and “rule of man”
Aristotle, his student carried forward this idea and ameliorated it in The Politics where he connoted “rule of law” with reason and “rule of man” with passion, importing that government should be bound by law in order to eliminate arbitrariness.
This idea was acknowledged during the Magna Carta’s promulgation in 1215, following a protracted series of uprisings by the nobles against the monarch as a result of his attempts to extort more money from them to pay for the French war. No one should be deprived of their liberty or property “unless by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land,” according to one of its notable clauses.
The “social contract” theory was developed by John Locke, the father of liberalism, in his book Two Treatises of Government (1690). According to Locke, people voluntarily agreed to give up their natural rights in exchange for the promise that their personal freedom and liberty will be protected by a governing authority through the enactment of various laws. He therefore argued that laws are crucial and should take precedence over all other forms of government..
This idea was further developed by Montesquieu in his work L’Esprit des Lois (1748), where he developed his theory of the division of powers and split governmental authority into three parts to prevent the concentration of all powers under one authority. Contrary to earlier thinkers, Montesquieu placed a high value on the judiciary’s role in ensuring the rule of law by limiting the unbridled powers of the executive and legislative.
The term “rule of law,” which Sir Edward Coke is credited with coining, comes from the French phrase “La Principe de Legalite,” which translates to “the principle of legality.” Through his publications, British constitutionalist Albert V. Dicey popularised the term “rule of law” in the nineteenth century.
He outlined his three guiding principles for the “Rule of Law” in his 1885 book Introduction to Study of the Laws of the Constitution. This idea (Rechsstaat), according to which all laws must adhere to the constitution and that governmental action is restrained by this legal framework, was also incorporated into the Austrian Constitution by Hans Kelsen.
The “rule of law” came to be recognised as a universal ideal with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The General Assembly of the United Nations declared that “it is essential” for human rights to be protected by the rule of law “if a man is not to have recourse to rebellion against tyranny and oppression as a last resort.”
Principles of Dicey’s Rule of Law
Professor Dicey recognised three core principles of rule of law.
They are:
Supremacy of Law– Dicey believed that the law of the land was supreme and that anyone who broke it would be held accountable. This means that until there is sufficient proof of a specific legal violation proven in accordance with conventional legal procedure before ordinary courts, no individual may be held accountable or subject to punitive harm involving his or her person or property. No one should therefore be punished or tormented in accordance with administrative officials’ whims or fancies, but rather solely in line with the established law and processes..
Equality before law– According to this idea, everyone is subject to regular law and is within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts rather than any special courts, regardless of class, caste, gender, or other factors. This suggests that public servants shouldn’t have any special privileges (apart from the monarch), and should be held accountable for their activities in front of regular courts. The same set of laws will therefore apply to everyone because the government cannot impose any form of preferential treatment on any one person..
The predominance of legal spirit– According to this idea, the court must be independent in order to uphold the spirit of the law. The general principles of the Constitution are the outcome of numerous judicial decisions, making the court of law a prominent institution that has commendably contributed to determining and upholding the rights of private individuals. Dicey argued that the judiciary is associated with the constitution rather than the constitution constituting its source.
Critical Analysis of Rule of Law
Dicey’s principle of “Rule of Law”forms a crucial tenet for upholding democracy and fundamental human rights, but in order to successfully implement it, we must first understand its benefits and shortcomings as well as how it has been implemented in other democracies throughout the world..
1 . Excellencies of “Rule of Law”
Ensures independence of the judiciary– The protection of the judiciary’s freedom is the third Dicey principle, which is crucial for upholding peoples’ fundamental rights. The judiciary is the third pillar/state of democracy, and Montesquieu stressed the significance of this institution in his theory of “Separation of Powers” in order to establish a system of checks and balances on the legislative and executive branches. This can be achieved by auditing the various laws and statutes that violate the fundamental principles of the constitution, such as any law that violates fundamental human rights or promotes discrimination on the basis of any category, and by closely examining the executive bodies’ actions to stop them from engaging in any extrajudicial actions or failing to follow the rules of law.
2. Endorses the freedom of people– The foundation of “Rule of Law” is the law of the land, but Dicey’s principle ensures that the laws do not hamper with human rights including freedom to speech and expression, freedom to have a decent life, etc., as the obligatory obedience and equal application of unjust laws will not make any difference in society. Therefore, through the illustration of the independence of the judiciary, Dicey throws light on its role in securing the rights of private citizens.Through various landmark judgements, courts have set precedents that will prevent any government or private agency from impeding the rights of any individual. For example, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the unlimited power of the legislature to amend any part of the Constitution was circumscribed by recognising the ‘rule of law’ as part of the basic structure of the constitution. Through this, the rampant misuse of the power of amending the Constitution came to a halt as no amend amendment could be brought if it hampers the basic structure of the Constitution (including human rights).
3. Dissuades arbitrariness on the part of administrative authority– Laws are intended to be implemented equally in a just society to all people to the same extent and in the same way, without straying from the letter of the law. This demands a significant reduction in arbitrary behaviour or broad discretionary power, which is protected by the “Rule of Law.” The laws become meaningless when they are abused or used arbitrarily by any authority, hence it is essential to distinguish between the will of the law and the will of the authority by giving the former supreme authority. Lex terrae thereby supersedes all governmental authorities, and any action that conflicts with it is prohibited. According to this theory, there is no locus standi for any form of arbitrary conduct, such as granting immunity from all liability to a particular class of persons or applying the law harshly to another class.
In P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court observed, “Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unethical both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory diktats”. This was further repeated in the case of D.S. Nakara & Others v.Union of India[
Preservation of the Constitution– A constitution is created with the hope that it will define and distinguish the nature of each state, as well as its goals, objectives, rights, and benefits to citizens. It also serves as a framework and guide for how the government and legal system should function, allocating each entity’s specific powers and responsibilities.
The idea of “rule of law,” whose fundamental tenet is to uphold and obey the law of the nation, aids in the preservation of the Constitution and its objectives because the Constitution serves as the state’s legal code. By maintaining its goals, this principle thwarts attempts to violate anyone’s fundamental rights and forbids the extrajudicial use of power. As a result, it ensures that laws remain stable and consistent and that they are not altered frequently or just to the advantage of one person or group of people.
Advocates a qualitative standard of life– Rule of law champions the qualitative standard of living if it operates to the letter. In the present scenario, the purview of ‘rule of law’ has broadened and apart from strictly abiding to the ordinary laws, this principle now also endorses the creation of the social conditions that would make it possible for the citizens to enjoy the social order.
Demerits of Rule of Law
1 .Categorizing discretionary power along with arbitrary power–
Dicey mistakenly believed that being flexible meant being capricious. He argued that all administrative decisions should be made in exact accordance with the law, without any room for discretion. Dicey was unable to draw the conclusion that slavish adherence to the law does not ensure justice or the principles of a democratic and contemporary constitution. Laws must occasionally be re-interpreted, changed, and replaced, which demands judgement and conscience. Ratification and achieving consensus over laws do not determine their credibility and applicability for eternity. Use of judgement and conscience is the best course of action if we want to put the goals of the laws into practise.
In Satbir v. Surat Singh & Ors, the court held that ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court; but if the High Court arrives at its findings overlooking important facts and relying upon few circumstances which do not in any way impair the probative value of the evidence adduced during the trial, this Court would be failing in its obligation to do complete justice if no intervention is done with such order of acquittal.
2. Contradictory– Dicey gave the judiciary’s function in establishing and defending individual rights a great deal of weight. However, this admirable objective is in conflict with the law’s stringent requirement of compliance, which leaves little room for discretion. Because the possibility of any contingent situation cannot be completely eliminated by ratifying the laws, the judiciary’s role in upholding and ensuring human rights cannot always be fulfilled by strictly adhering to the law. As a result, giving administrative authorities discretion helps to ensure the goals and motivations of the lex loci.
In I. C. Golaknath and Others v. State of Punjab and Anr., Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao for the first time invoked the doctrine of Prospective overruling and by a thin majority of 6:5 ratio overturned the earlier precedents and made Fundamental Rights out of the ambit of the government’s amending power. The judges, in this case, employed the power of their discretion and conscience in considering the earlier precedents set in Shankari Prasad v. UOI and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan as not fit to be followed in the future judgements as the earlier judgements did not safeguard the fundamental rights and therefore had to be remedied leading to the introduction of Prospective Overruling.
3. Overemphasis of the role of Judicial Decisions– Dicey exaggerated the importance of judicial decisions in ensuring the rights of private persons or bringing reformation in society. The rationale given by Dicey completely disregard the role of the legislature in securing the rights of people but in fact over the centuries when the judiciary’s role was not well-defined and it did not possess any autonomy, the legislature had not taken a back seat in ensuring the rights of people. For example, in IIndia, the promulgation of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, prevented discrimination against women in receiving equal recompense as provided to men. Similarly, through the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 a daughter’s right to be an equal coparcener as a son in claiming her share in the ancestral property of the Hindu Undivided Family was established and any sort of discrimination in claiming her right was deemed to be unlawful. In Britain, the right to Unemployment Insurance has been given to the people under the Parliamentary Acts. Similarly, the Libel Act of 1888 gave certain special rights to the press.
In the USA, the ratification of the Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibited discriminatory behaviour in public places along with employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin, in the same way, the Voting Rights Act (1965) ensured the voting rights of blacks and abolished any discrimination that blacks faced during voting. Therefore, the legislature has also contributed to maintaining people’s rights and curing any kind of oppression.
4. Allotting undue moral superiority to Judiciary–The judiciary’s position as the protector of human rights or as an inspector, vetting the legislature’s and the executive’s extra-constitutional behaviour, is a dominant aspect of defining the relative power between the three organs in the modern era. The judiciary has frequently performed admirably in upholding democracy, upholding human rights, and ensuring justice, yet it is a sad fact that sometimes the judiciary has fallen short of its moral and ethical obligations. Dicey believed that the only institution capable of ensuring justice and human rights was the judicial system. A particular body gains too much authority and too little responsibility when this moral superiority is given to a structure that isn’t even subject to adequate auditing or review.
On one occasion, former Chief Justice JS Verma acknowledged this reality: “These days, judges are instructing everyone what to do, but who is to tell us? Although it is our responsibility to uphold the law, that does not absolve or excuse us from doing so. In order to secure the true meaning of “rule of law,” the judiciary should also be subject to some form of inspection (without any interference in its independence). This is because a system of checks and balances on the legislature and executive by the judiciary is insufficient to prevent authoritarian behaviour.
Application of Rule of Law in India
Dicey’s concept of ‘Rule of Law’ has been embraced by the Indian Constitution and by a humongous range of judgements. Our Common Law system has been borrowed from British Jurisprudence, the basis of which is the ‘Rule of Law’.
Some of the articles of our Constitution states its application and they are:
Article 13(1): It states, Insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this Part, all laws that were in effect on Indian territory before the beginning of this Constitution shall be void to the degree of such conflict. The legislative branch and the executive branch get their authority from the constitution, which indicates that the constitution shall be the ultimate authority in the nation. The Constitution must be followed for any law created by the legislature to be valid; otherwise, it will be ruled invalid.
According to Article 14: “The State shall not refuse to any individual within the territory of India, equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.” It means that everyone, regardless of differences, is subject to the same set of laws and that nobody is above the law. Therefore, no one will either have legal immunity from all laws or receive particularly harsh treatment under the law.
Article 21: It states, “On Indian territory, no one will be denied equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws, nor shall any person be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with the method established by law.” A additional safeguard against executive action taken arbitrarily is provided by Article 21, which states that no one may be deprived of their life or freedom until doing so in line with the legal process.
Article 32 and 226: To ensure its honest applicability in India, the Constitution provides remedies to secure fundamental rights in the form of writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Certiorari and Prohibition.
Case Laws
[6] 1990 AIR 1176. [7] Decided on 18.09.2013. [8] [9] [10] AIR 1978 SC 597. [11] [12]
A D M Jabalpur v. Shivkanth shukla 1976 2 SCC 521 : the Habeas Corpus Case. In this case, the question before the court was ‘whether there was any rule of law in India apart from Article 21’. The context in this case was of abeyance of implementation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 during the proclamation of an emergency. The answer to the majority of the bench was in negative for the question of law. However, Justice H.R. Khanna had a distinct opinion observing that:” Even in absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the state has got no power to deprive a person of his life and liberty without the authority of law. Without such sanctity of life and liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to have any meaning…Rule of Law is now the accepted norm of all civilized societies“.
Chief Settlement Commr; Punjab v. Om PrakashAIR 1969 SC 33. It was observed by the Supreme Court that, “In our constitutional system, the central and most characteristic feature is the concept of rule of law which means, in the present context, the authority of law courts to test all administrative action by the standard of legality. The administrative or executive action that does not meet the standard will be set aside if the aggrieved person brings the matter into notice.”
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam :[10 April, 1967] 3 SCR 525 The Supreme Court has held that every executive action if it operates to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority.
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadeviand Ors:(1992) 3 SCR 826. A Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down the law in the following terms: “Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala:(1973) 4 SCC 225. The Supreme Court held that the Rule of Law is an essential part of the basic structure of the constitution and as such cannot be amended by any Act of Parliament, thereby showing how the law is superior to all other authority of men.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India:AIR 1978 SC 597.The Court held that exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by the government would not infringe the rights of the people and arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. Balasaheb Vikhe Patil:AIR 1994 SC 678. The Court observed that for survival of democracy, rule of law must prevail, and it is necessary that the best available men should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values who win the elections on a positive vote obtained on their own merit and not by the negative vote of process of elimination based on comparative demerits of the c
Conclusion
The rule of law is the basis of most democratic constitutions. The world has come a long way from the colonial era of prejudice and prejudice, but equal treatment remains a pipe dream for many who have been forced to live oppressively and unfairly. Thus, the construction of pioneering concepts and teachings for the development of society plays only a partial role, but requires the efforts of society as a whole to change reality.
