Introduction

The term ‘rule of law’ is derived from the French word ‘le principe de legalite’ which means ‘the principle of
legality’. Rule of law, also known as supremacy of law, means that no one (including government) is above the law.
The rule of law is a legal principle that law should govern a nation against arbitrary decisions by government
officials. Every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law irrespective of their position and rank.
Rule of law is one of the basic principles of the English Constitution and the doctrine is accepted in the Constitution
of U.S.A and India as well. The entire basis of Administrative Law is the doctrine of the rule of law. Sir Edward Coke,
was the originator of this concept. He maintained that the King should be subject to God and the Law and
established the supremacy of the law against the Supreme Court and that nothing could be against the law.

Similarly, Aristotle further under writes the concept of the Rule of Law that “law should govern and that in power
should be servants of the laws.”

Dicey’s Concept of Rule of Law

Edward Coke is the originator of concept of Rule of Law. But the credit of developing the concept of rule of Law goes
to Professor A.V. Dicey is known to be the main exponent of the concept of the rule of law. In 1885, he propounded
three principles of the rule of law in his classic book ‘Law and the Constitution’. According to Professor A.V. Dicey, to
achieve the supremacy of law the following three principles must be followed:

o Supremacy of the law

o Equality before the law

o Predominance of legal spirit: the court should be free from impartiality and external influence.

Supremacy of Law

This is the first pillar of Dicey’s concept of rule of law. The Rule of Law rejects all kinds of arbitrary and discretionary
powers of the government or public officials. It implies that a man may be punished for a breach of law, but
he cannot be punished for anything else. The First meaning of the Rule of Law is that ‘no man is punishable or can
lawfully be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal
manner before the ordinary courts of the land’.

This has always been a basic understanding of the law that goes hand in hand with the fact that the law rules over all
people including the people in charge of the law

Equality Before Law

The second important pillar of Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law is Equality before Law. Dicey emphasizes
the impartiality of law. It means that there shall be no distinction between the rich and the poor, officials and non-
officials, majority and minority, no one can be degraded, and no one can be upgraded. Law gives equal justice to all.
He is of the view that there should be the same set of laws for all the people, and they should be adjudicated by the
same courts.

Predominance of the Legal Spirit

The third pillar of Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law is predominance of legal spirit. Explaining the third principle, Dicey
asserts that rights (e.g. right to personal liberty, freedom from arrest etc.) are the result of judicial decision in
particular cases which have actually arisen between the parties. The constitution is not the source but the
consequence of the right of the individuals. According to Dicey, for the prevalence of the rule of law there should be
an enforcing authority and that authority he found in the courts. He believed that the courts are the enforcers of the
rule of law and hence it should be free from impartiality and external influence. Independence of the judiciary is
therefore an important pillar for the existence of the rule of law.

Criticism of Dicey’s Concept

 Dicey has ignored the importance of the codification of laws.

  Codification of laws is important to ensure the rights of an individual as it provides certainty, anything which
is codified is certain and thus, could be followed more effectively.

 He has misunderstood the concept of Droit administratif (the body of rules which regulate the relations of
the administration or of the administrative authority towards private citizens).

 According to him, the system was designed to protect the officials but in certain respects, it was specifically
effective in controlling the administration than the common law system.

Rule of Law in India

Constitution of India, 1950 is the law of the land and prevails over the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive.
These three organs of the state have to act according to the principles engraved in the constitution. Under the
Constitution, the rule of law is incorporated in many of its provisions.

 Article 13 promotes the doctrine of Rule of Law in India.

o The “laws’’ defined under Article 13 as rules, regulations, byelaws and ordinances can be struck down if
they are contrary to the constitution of India.

 Aguarantees the right to equality before law and equal protection of law.

o It states that no one shall be denied equality before the law and the equal protection of the law by the
state.

 In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court has included the Rule of Law as
the basic feature of the Constitution.

 In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the SC in clear words observed that Article 14 strikes
arbitrariness in State actions, ensures fairness and equality in treatment.

 Another significant derivative goof rule of law is judicial review.

o It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive
orders of both the Central and State governments.

 It not only protects constitutional principles but also checks administrative actions and its legality.

o In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the power of judicial review was established by
the Supreme Court.

 The powers of judicial review are delegated to the High Courts under Article 226 and Article 227 and to
the Supreme Courts under Article 32 and Article 136.

Modern Concept of Rule of Law

In today’s scenario, Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law is not accepted in totality. The modern concept of the Rule of Law
is fairly wide and therefore it sets up an ideal for any Government to achieve. The modern idea of Rule of Law
was formed by the International Commission of Jurists, otherwise called the Delhi Declaration, 1959, which was
later affirmed at Lagos in 1961. According to the Modern Concept, the ‘Rule of Law’ implies:

o Functions of the government in a free society should be so exercised in which the dignity of a man as an
individual is upheld - the government should act in a way that treats everyone with respect, regardless of
who they are. The idea is that the government should act in a way that upholds the importance and
worth of every individual.

o Effective government capable of maintaining law and order - An effective government acts like a reliable
security guard in a free society. It enforces laws and prevents crime, creating a safe environment where
people can live their lives without constant fear. This allows individuals to pursue their goals and
happiness without worrying about violence or disorder.
 o No arrest without the authority of law, Legal aid, public trial and fair hearing and Presumption of
Innocence - To protect person dignity, one shouldn't be arrested arbitrarily. Even if arrested, he or she
must have the right to a lawyer (legal aid), a public trial where evidence is presented, and a fair hearing
where he presumed innocent until proven guilty by the law

o Independent Judiciary - An independent judiciary acts as a neutral referee in society. Free from political
pressure or personal gain, these judges can make decisions based solely on the law and evidence,
ensuring everyone receives a fair trial and that even the government itself follows the rules. This
independence safeguards individual rights and protects our dignity by guaranteeing equal treatment
under the law

 Thus, the rule of law in the modern sense ensures that there is encouragement of political interest and where
the criticism of the government is not only permitted but also given a positive merit.

Exceptions to ‘Rule of Law’

President and Governors are provided with some immunity through Articles 361, 361 (2), 361 (3) and 361 (4) of the
Indian Constitution. Article 361 states that -

(1) The President, or the Governor a State, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance
of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and
performance of those powers and duties:

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of a
State, in any court during his term of office

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State, shall issue from any
court during his term of office

(4) Any civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the Governor of a State, shall be
instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his
personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office as President, or as Governor of such State, until
the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or Governor, as the
case may be, or left at his office stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action therefor, the name,
description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which
he claims.

 Immunity to Foreign Diplomats.

o The Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 1961 contains provisions in relation to different
immunities and privileges which are granted to the diplomatic envoys or agents.

 Immunity to Supreme Court and High Court Judges including Article 121 of the Indian Constitution which
restricts the discussion on the conduct of such judges in Parliament.

Case Laws
 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

o This case is also known as “Habeas Corpus case”. It is one of the most important cases when it
comes to rule of law.

o The question that was raised before the Hon’ble Court was whether there was any rule of law in
India apart from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

 DC Wadhva v. State of Bihar (1986)

o The SC used the rule of law to decry state government which was too frequently using its ordinance
making power as a substitute of legislation by the legislature.
 o The Court ruled that the re-promulgation of ordinances was unconstitutional as the re-
promulgation of the ordinances for a period of one to fourteen years without going to the
legislation was a colourable exercise of power by the executive.

 Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi (2000)

o The SC has laid down the proposition that it is the duty of the State to preserve and protect the
laws and that it may not permit any violent act, which may negate the rule of law.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Rule of Law states that decisions must be made using known principles and laws, such decisions must
be predicted and citizens must know where they are. It does not include violence. It can be concluded that the
essence of the law is the goal; the rule of law is the best tool to achieve goals. Some of the efforts are also taken up
by the court where the Rule of Law is linked to Human Rights. The strategy was developed by a court in which the
government could be forced not only to legislate but also to create conditions in which the power could be
developed by the people to enjoy their rights in a fair and understandable way. In Indian society, the concept of rule
of law in Administrative Law in India did not achieve the intended results