Rule Of Law

One of the most fundamental aspects of modern legal systems is the Rule of Law. The rule simply states, "however high you may be, the Law is above you." It establishes that the Law is supreme and that no human being has authority over the Law.

 

Most constitutions, including the English Constitution, the American Constitution, and the Indian Constitution, guarantee Rule of Law, which means that authorities must adhere to it strictly. This Rule underpins a lot of administrative law. The term 'Rule of Law' comes from the French phrase la principe de legalite, which means "the principle of legality" (the principle of legality)

The Administrative Law of England was influenced by the Rule of Law, whereas the Administrative Law of the United States was influenced by the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

 

Any legal or political system cannot function without the principle of the rule of law. Fairness, equality, and non-arbitrariness are ingrained in it. The principle's origins can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, where it was mostly positive. It gradually expanded in Rome to include both positive and negative traditions. A.V. Dicey provided an authoritative interpretation. The term 'Rule of Law' is defined by three principles, according to A V Dicey. 1. Supremacy of Law 2. Equality before Law 3. Predominance of Legal spirit

 

1) Absolute supremacy of law or absence of arbitrary power — Dicey believes that justice must be achieved through the application of well-established legal principles, rather than through arbitrariness or the exercise of broad discretionary powers by the government. 

 

2) Legal equality — no one is above the law. All people are subject to the ordinary law of the land as it is administered by ordinary courts. 

 

3) People's rights must be derived from customs and traditions (rights have Common Law origin). Individual rights existed before the Constitution was written, and the Constitution simply codifies and consolidates them for legal protection.

 

Rule of Law is the basic feature of all democratic constitutions including Indian Constitution, as implied in Article 14. 

 

Despite the fact that our Constitution guarantees equality, there are some exceptions to the Rule of Law in the public interest:

 

For the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office, the President or Governor of a State is not answerable to any court.

 

During the President's or a Governor's term of office, no criminal proceeding shall be instituted or continued in any court.

 

No civil proceeding in which relief is sought against the President or the Governor of a State may be brought in any court during his term of office until two months have passed after a notice has been served on him. These privileges do not prevent the President from being impeached or from bringing suits or other legal actions against the Indian government or state governments. Foreign sovereigns and ambassadors are given special treatment.

 

The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in shaping India's legal system. The courts have ensured that the Rule of Law and respect for citizens' rights are not only on paper but also in spirit by taking a positive approach and dynamically interpreting constitutional provisions.

 

 

…..Rule of Law is now the accepted norm of all civilised societ-ies……

Everywhere it is identified with the liberty of the individual. It seeks to maintain a balance between the opposing notions of individual liberty and public order.”

 

 

• Legislation must primarily be made by a democratically elected legislature;

 

• Even in the hands of a democratically elected legislature, legislative power should be limited; and

 

• An independent judiciary is required to protect citizens from executive and legislative power abuses.

 

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, in which the question of amendability of fundamental rights arose, was the first case that sparked a debate about Rule of Law. The question lingered, and after witnessing the government's and judiciary's back-and-forth, the issue was finally resolved in the case of Kesavananda Bhrati v. State of Kerala. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the Rule of Law is the Constitution's "basicstructure." The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by a majority decision, overturned the decision in Golak Nath's case, holding that Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution, which extend to all Articles, but that these powers are not unlimited and do not include the power to destroy or abolish the Constitution's basic features or framework. The power of amendment under Art 368 is subject to implied limitations imposed by the Rule of Law. Within these bounds, Parliament has the authority to amend any article of the Constitution. Despite agreeing with the majority decision, Justice H R Khanna played a critical role in upholding the rule of law.

 

The Supreme Court ruled in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan that the Rule of Law, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, is a "basic feature" of the Indian Constitution that cannot be overturned even by amending the Constitution under Article 368. Article 329-A was added to the Constitution as part of the 39th amendment, which gave the Prime Minister's election immunity from judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 329-A was unconstitutional because it clearly applied only to the then-current prime minister and was a one-time amendment. It was decided that the law of the land is supreme and must take precedence over a single individual's will. The Hon'ble Supreme Court established the Rule of Law in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, holding that no one can be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless he follows the procedures established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. As a result, before a person's life and liberty are taken away, Article 21 requires that the following conditions be met:

 

1. There must be a law that is valid.

 

2. There must be a procedure in the law.

 

3. The procedure must be just, reasonable, and fair.

 

4. The law must meet the requirements of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

 

In Som Raj v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court stated that the absence of arbitrary power is the primary postulate of Rule of Law, upon which the entire constitutional edifice is built. The concept of discretion being exercised without any rules is the polar opposite of the concept.

 

The independence of the judiciary and the power of judicial review are two other aspects of India's Rule of Law. In the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, the Supreme Court stated that "it is without a doubt that a significant degree of principles that govern the lives of the people and regulate the functions of the State flow from the decisions of the superior courts." As previously stated, the rule of law presupposes power control. Judicial review is an effective mechanism for ensuring systemic checks and balances. As a result, any provision that eliminates the right to judicial review is seen as going against the very foundations of the rule of law. In the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, the courts reaffirmed that judicial review is an integral part of the Constitution's basic structure.

 

The definition of rule of law has been broadened in India. It is regarded as a part of the Constitution's fundamental structure, and as such, it cannot be repealed or repealed by Parliament. The preamble enshrined the Constitution's ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws should be enacted in accordance with it. Any violation of the law renders it ultra vires. The independence of the judiciary reflects the rule of law.