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  

1. Law is supreme and nobody is above the law.
2. All the things should be done according to a law not as per whim.
3. No person should be suffered except for the breach of law.
4. Absence of arbitrary is the soul of the rule of law.
5. Equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
6. Speedy trial.
7.  The fair and just procedure should be conducted.
8. 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:

1.  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..
2. 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..
3. 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[ 

4. 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.

5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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]

1. 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“.
2. Chief Settlement Commr; Punjab v. Om Prakash  AIR 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.”
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.