This article is written by Arshi Biswakarma of South Calcutta Law College , an intern under Legal Vidhiya
INTRODUCTION
The rule of law is a fundamental principle that underpins democratic governance, ensuring that all individuals, institutions, and government officials are subject to and accountable under law. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary governance, promoting fairness, justice, and legal certainty in society. The rule of law is deeply entrenched in the constitutional framework across the world and remains a key tenet of international legal systems.
In its most basic interpretation, the idea of the rule of law is the bedrock on which the present democratic system is built and strives to sustain. The notion of rule law refers to a geographical territory that is administered by laws as well as regulations rather than unauthorised or unlawful processing by men. In a nutshell, the rule of rule of law is an inalienable characteristic of democracies around the world. It facilitates effective administration that leads everlasting worth to the constitution.
CONCEPT AND HISTORY OF RULE OF LAW
The idea of rule of law can be traced back to ancient civilisations, where societies sought to establish systems of governance based on legal principles rather than whims of rulers. Some of the earliest references to legal codes include:
Mahabharata – The concept of rule of law can be traced back to the Indian epics Ramayana, Mahabharata and Upanishads asserting that even kings are subordinate to it. Raj dharma dictates rulers must protect their people, or risk removal. Texts like art hash Astra and manus Rita further develop legal principle, reinforcing justice and accountability in governance
The code of Hammurabi – One of the oldest written legal codes, established in ancient Babylon, emphasised the idea that laws must be written and applied consistently.
Roman law – The development of Roman jurisprudence laid the foundation for legal systems that followed, particularly through the notion of lex (law) being supreme over rulers and citizens alike.
Magna carta – The Magna carta signed by king john of England, limited royal authority and established that even the king was subject to law. It is widely regarded as a precursor to constitutionalism and modern rule of law principles.
DEFINITION BY JOHN LOCKE, MONTESQUIEU AND A.V. DICEY
John Locke – Locke emphasised the idea of the rule of law in his work ‘Two Treaties of Government’. He provided that: laws must be established and known in advance, government must operate within the boundaries of these laws, no one including the rulers is above the law, the purpose of the law is to protect life, liberty and property. Locke saw the rule of law as a safeguard against tyranny, ensuring that governmental power is exercised based on reason and the consent.
Criticism- Locke’s definition of rule of law is considered to be too idealist. He assumes that rules will willingly respect the law, but in reality, governments often seek to expand power. It has less focus on enforcement, he does not provide a clear mechanism to ensure rulers follow the rule. His emphasis on property rights may overlook broader social justice concerns, such as economic inequity.
Montesquieu- Montesquieu, in ‘The Spirits of the Laws’ developed the idea of separation of powers, which is fundamental to the rule of law. He provided that: The government must be decided into three branches legislative executive and judiciary to prevent abuse of power. Laws must be applied equally to all individuals without favouritism, a just legal system must ensure that laws are clear, stable and fairly enforced. For Montesquieu, the rule of law meant a system where power is checked and balanced to prevent disposition.
Criticism- It is not always practical some governments struggle to implement a full separation of powers leading to inefficiency. In many modern states, the judiciary is still influenced by politics, Montesquieu argued that different societies need different laws, which critics say could justify oppressive laws, under cultural traditions.
A.V. Dicey- A.V. Dicey in ‘Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution’, defined the rule of law based on three key principles: 1) Supremacy of Law which means no one can be punished or suffer legally unless they violate a law established in the ordinary legal manner. 2) Equality Before the Law which means every person regardless of status is subject to the same laws and the same courts. 3) Predominance of legal spirit which means the constitution is not the source of right rather rights are protected through judicial decisions based on Legal principles. Dicey’s concept of the rule of law was foundational to modern legal systems, emphasising legal certainty and fairness.
Criticism- Dicey focused on legal principles but ignores social and economic inequalities that prevent true equality before law. His ideas do not account for the rise of administrative bodies, which are crucial in modern governance. His model is based on UK’s unwritten constitution, making it less applicable to other legal systems.
RULE OF LAW IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Supremacy of the Constitution- The Indian constitution is the supreme law of the land, meaning that all laws, policies, and government actions must conform to its provisions. Article 13 explicitly established this principle by stating that any law that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights shall be declared void. This ensures that neither the legislation nor the executive can pass laws or take actions that violate fundamental rights. Additionally, Article 256 mandates that state governments comply with union laws, reinforcing constitutional supremacy. The judiciary, particularly through judicial review (Article 32 and Article 226), acts as the final interpreter of the constitution, ensuring that all laws adhere to constitutional mandates. This framework prevents the government from enacting arbitrary or oppressive laws, maintaining the rule of law.
Equality Before the Law- the principle of equality before the law is enshrined in Article 14, which states that ‘the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India’. This embodies the idea that no individual, regardless of their social status, political influence, or economic power, is above the law. It ensures that the legal system applies uniformly to all citizens and prohibits discriminatory practices by the state. The equality before the law aspect comes from the British concept of rule of law, while the equal protection of the laws is derived from the 14th amendment of the U.S Constitution, ensuring that laws must be applied fairly to all individuals in similar circumstances. However Article 14 also allows reasonable classification, meaning that the government can make distinctions in laws if they are based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.
Fundamental Rights- the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution from Article 12 to Article 35 are essential in upholding the rule of law by providing constitutional guarantees against arbitrary state action. Article 21 (Right to life and Personal Liberty) ensures that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. This means that government actions affecting an individual’s life and freedom must be backed by fair and reasonable laws. The right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) safeguards political and civil liberties, ensuring government accountability and transparency. Furthermore, Article 22 protects individuals against arbitrary arrests and detention, mandating due process in legal proceedings. These fundamental rights acts as limitations on state power, ensuring that individuals have legal remedies against state excesses, thereby reinforcing the rule of law.
Judicial Review- The Rule of Law is further safeguarded by the judiciary’s power of judicial review, as established under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court is empowered to issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto to enforce fundamental rights. Similarly Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs for not only fundamental rights but also for other legal rights, thereby enhancing judicial oversight over executive, judiciary and legislation. Judicial review ensures that unconstitutional laws and executive decisions are struck down, preventing the misuse of power.
CASE LAWS
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88)- It was a landmark case in Indian constitutional law. A.K Gopalan, a communist leader, challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, arguing it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Supreme Court upheld the Act, ruling that ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21 did not require compliance with the principles of natural justice or due process. This narrow interpretation of fundamental rights was later overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978)
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150, 1969 SCR(2) 46)- It was a landmark case on natural justice and the doctrine of bias. A selection board member for the Indian forest services was also a candidate, raising concerns about impartiality. The Supreme Court ruled that administrative decisions must follow natural justice principles, blurring the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions. It held that bias vitiates decisions, ensuring fairness in public appointments. This case expanded judicial review, reinforcing that even administrative actions must be just, fair, and reasonable, preventing arbitrariness in executive decisions.
Indira Nehru Gandhi V Raj Narain (1975 AIR 2299, 1975 SCR (3) 333)- It was a landmark case concerning the validity of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election. The Allahabad High Court found her guilty of electoral malpractices, disqualifying her. During the appeal, the government passed the 39th constitutional amendment, barring judicial review of elections for key officials. The Supreme Court struck down this amendment, holding that it violated the basic structure doctrine by curtailing judicial review and free elections. This case reaffirmed that democracy and judicial review are essential parts of Indian constitution, strengthening constitutional supremacy over political power
CONCLUSION
The Indian constitution provides a strong institutional framework for upholding the rule of law, ensuring constitutional supremacy, equality before the law, protection of fundamental rights, judicial review. These provisions prevent authoritarian rule, protect individual freedoms, ensure government accountability. However, the effective implementation of the rule of law requires judicial efficiency, transparency in governance, and strong enforcement mechanisms. While India has made significant progress, challenges such as judicial delays, corruption, and political interference still hinder the full realisation of this principle. Therefore, strengthening democratic institutions, judicial reforms, and strict adherence to constitutional principles are necessary to uphold the rule of law in its true essence.
REFERENCES
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/rule-of-law-2/
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
0 Comments