Modern critique of Dicey’s Rule of Law
⚖️ MODERN CRITIQUE OF DICEY’S RULE OF LAW
✅ I. A.V. Dicey’s Classical View of the Rule of Law
A.V. Dicey (1885) defined the Rule of Law based on three core principles:
Supremacy of Law
No person is above the law, and law governs all actions — not arbitrary power.
Equality Before the Law
Every individual, regardless of rank or status, is subject to ordinary law and courts.
Primacy of Individual Rights Through Courts
The constitution is the result of ordinary law, and rights are best protected by common law courts — not through a written constitution or administrative law.
✅ II. Modern Critiques of Dicey’s Doctrine
While Dicey's Rule of Law remains foundational, modern legal scholarship and jurisprudence have critiqued and evolved it significantly. Here’s why:
1. Rejection of Dicey’s Anti-Administrative Bias
Dicey distrusted administrative tribunals and executive discretion.
Modern governance relies heavily on administrative agencies and discretionary powers.
2. Constitutionalism and Written Rights
Dicey opposed written constitutions; today, written constitutions and bills of rights are central in many systems (e.g., India, USA, South Africa).
3. Substantive vs. Formal Rule of Law
Dicey’s version is procedural/formal.
Modern views emphasize substantive Rule of Law — including justice, fairness, and human rights.
4. Social Justice and Welfare State
Dicey's emphasis on individual liberty doesn't fully accommodate the modern welfare state's focus on equality, socio-economic rights, and distributive justice.
5. Globalization and International Law
Dicey's model is state-centric; today's Rule of Law interacts with international human rights law and supranational courts (e.g., ECHR, ICC).
🧑⚖️ III. Case Law: Modern Judicial Engagement with Dicey's Rule of Law
1. Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030
Foundational Diceyan Principle: No arbitrary executive action
Facts:
Government agents broke into Entick's home on ministerial orders to seize papers — without legal authority.
Holding:
The action was unlawful. State power must be based on law.
Relevance:
This case is often cited by Dicey himself. It represents the foundational idea of legality — that the executive cannot act without clear legal authority.
2. R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
Facts:
The Lord Chancellor imposed employment tribunal fees, allegedly restricting access to justice.
Issue:
Do excessive fees violate the Rule of Law?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that restricting access to justice undermines the Rule of Law.
Relevance:
This case demonstrates a substantive and evolving understanding of Dicey's first principle. The court protected access to justice as a core component of Rule of Law — not just formal legality.
3. A & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56
(Belmarsh Case – National Security and Rule of Law)
Facts:
Foreign nationals were detained indefinitely under anti-terrorism laws without charge or trial.
Issue:
Did this violate human rights and the Rule of Law?
Holding:
Yes. The Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without trial violated liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Relevance:
This case critiques Dicey’s limited conception of rights, showing the importance of codified human rights instruments and international norms — both rejected by Dicey.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) AIR 1975 SC 2299 (India)
Facts:
The Prime Minister’s election was challenged. Parliament amended the Constitution to immunize her election from judicial review.
Holding:
The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, holding that Rule of Law is part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.
Relevance:
Rejects Dicey's view that rights arise only through common law. Instead, the Court treated the written Constitution and judicial review as pillars of Rule of Law.
5. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ Case)
Facts:
PM restricted union membership of GCHQ employees via executive order without prior consultation.
Issue:
Was the executive action subject to judicial review?
Holding:
Yes, even the exercise of prerogative powers must conform to Rule of Law and judicial review, though national security was a limiting factor.
Relevance:
The case evolved Dicey's ideas by accepting executive discretion, but still subject to legal principles and review — balancing Dicey’s formalism with modern realities.
6. R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21
Facts:
The Attorney General tried to block release of Prince Charles’ letters to government departments under Freedom of Information law.
Issue:
Can the executive override a judicial decision using statutory powers?
Holding:
No. The court held that the executive cannot override a final judicial decision — doing so would violate the Rule of Law.
Relevance:
Powerfully reaffirms the separation of powers and the authority of courts, aligning with Dicey, but also extending it to constitutional principles and transparency.
7. Case of Prohibitions (1607) – Chief Justice Coke
Holding:
The King cannot personally administer justice. Only courts, acting under law, can do so.
Relevance:
Even before Dicey, this case set the tone for the supremacy of law over executive. Dicey built upon such principles, but modern courts have further constitutionalized them.
📝 IV. Summary of Key Case Lessons
| Case | Modern Principle | Relation to Dicey |
|---|---|---|
| Entick v Carrington | Government must act under law | Supports Dicey’s principle of legality |
| UNISON (2017) | Access to justice as part of Rule of Law | Expands Dicey's concept into substantive rights |
| Belmarsh Detainees Case (2004) | Human rights constrain state power | Rejects Dicey’s disdain for written rights |
| Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain | Rule of Law is constitutional principle | Rejects Dicey’s unwritten constitution idea |
| GCHQ Case | Prerogative power subject to legal review | Evolves Dicey’s equality before law |
| Evans v AG (2015) | Courts have final authority over legality | Affirms Dicey’s rule but in modern transparency context |
| Case of Prohibitions (1607) | Executive cannot judge | Foundation for Dicey’s legality principle |
✅ V. Key Critiques of Dicey’s Rule of Law Today
| Critique Area | Dicey's View | Modern Understanding |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative Law | Opposed to administrative tribunals | Essential for modern governance; must be legally constrained |
| Written Constitutions | Opposed | Accepted as foundational in most democracies |
| Judicial Review | Preferred common law | Now rooted in constitutional supremacy |
| Social Rights / Welfare State | Emphasized individual liberty only | Rule of Law now includes equality, welfare, social justice |
| International Law / Human Rights | Ignored | Central to modern legal systems and Rule of Law development |
✅ VI. Conclusion
While A.V. Dicey’s Rule of Law laid foundational principles of legality, equality, and judicial control, modern courts and scholars have significantly critiqued and expanded his views. Key developments include:
Embracing administrative law with legal safeguards,
Recognizing written constitutions and human rights instruments,
Ensuring substantive fairness, not just procedural regularity,
Acknowledging the role of international law.
Thus, the Rule of Law today is a living, evolving doctrine — richer and broader than Dicey's original formulation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments