Evolution of the Rule of Law in India
Evolution of the Rule of Law in India
1. Concept of Rule of Law
The Rule of Law means that every person, institution, and entity is accountable to laws that are:
Publicly promulgated
Equally enforced
Independently adjudicated
Consistent with international human rights principles
It ensures that no one is above the law, including the government. It prevents arbitrariness and abuse of power.
2. Historical Development in India
Before independence, India was under colonial rule, where the rule of law was often used to justify colonial authority rather than protect rights.
Post-independence, the Constitution of India became the supreme law, anchoring the rule of law firmly in Indian jurisprudence.
3. Key Features in Indian Context
Supremacy of Constitution
Equality before law (Article 14)
Protection of fundamental rights
Judicial review of executive and legislative action
Separation of powers between legislature, executive, and judiciary
Important Case Laws Demonstrating the Evolution of Rule of Law in India
Case 1: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: The petitioner challenged preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act.
Significance: The Supreme Court initially took a narrow view of fundamental rights, emphasizing the letter of law over the broader principles of liberty.
Rule of Law Aspect: Although the Court upheld the detention, it laid the foundation for judicial review, starting a dialogue on rights vs. state power.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without a fair hearing.
Judgment: The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), ruling that any procedure depriving a person of liberty must be “fair, just, and reasonable.”
Rule of Law Aspect: This case marked a shift from formal legality to substantive fairness, embedding the principle that arbitrary state action violates the rule of law.
Case 3: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenge to the amendments of the Constitution that affected property rights.
Judgment: The Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s “basic structure.”
Rule of Law Aspect: This case reinforced constitutional supremacy and protected the rule of law by limiting the powers of Parliament, ensuring checks and balances.
Case 4: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: Challenge against the 42nd Amendment which curtailed judicial review.
Judgment: The Court struck down parts of the Amendment, affirming judicial review as part of the basic structure.
Rule of Law Aspect: Reinforced that laws must conform to constitutional principles and the judiciary must act as a guardian of the rule of law.
Case 5: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which criminalized offensive online speech.
Judgment: The Court struck down Section 66A as vague and arbitrary.
Rule of Law Aspect: Upheld freedom of speech and ruled against vague laws that can be misused, reinforcing legal certainty and protection against arbitrary state action.
Case 6: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Facts: In the absence of laws addressing sexual harassment at the workplace, guidelines were sought.
Judgment: The Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines to prevent sexual harassment.
Rule of Law Aspect: The judiciary stepped in to fill legislative gaps to protect fundamental rights, demonstrating proactive adherence to the rule of law principles.
Case 7: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Facts: The case challenged the validity of laws placed under the Ninth Schedule that protected them from judicial review.
Judgment: The Court held that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights.
Rule of Law Aspect: This case reasserted the judiciary’s power to strike down arbitrary laws, safeguarding constitutional rights.
Summary of Evolution
| Phase | Description | Key Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Early Phase | Formalist approach, narrow interpretation of rights | A.K. Gopalan |
| Expansion Phase | Emphasis on procedural fairness & substantive rights | Maneka Gandhi |
| Constitutional Supremacy | Limiting parliamentary power, protecting basic structure | Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills |
| Modern Phase | Judicial activism protecting civil liberties and rights | Vishaka, Shreya Singhal, I.R. Coelho |
Final Thoughts:
The Rule of Law in India has evolved from a procedural framework to a more substantive safeguard of individual rights and constitutional supremacy. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in ensuring that laws are not arbitrary and that the government respects constitutional guarantees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments