The Rule of Law- An analysis of the working of the Doctrine of the Rule of Law
📘 Doctrine of the Rule of Law
🔹 What is the Rule of Law?
The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle in democratic societies which means:
"No one is above the law and that law applies equally to all, including those who govern."
🔹 Origin and Evolution:
A.V. Dicey, a British jurist, popularized the concept in his book “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution” (1885).
Dicey’s three key principles of Rule of Law:
Supremacy of Law: Law rules over everyone, including the government.
Equality Before Law: No special privileges; equal subjection to ordinary laws of the land.
Predominance of Legal Spirit (Due Process): Rights of individuals are protected by law and enforced by ordinary courts.
🔹 Rule of Law in Indian Context:
The Rule of Law is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is an essential feature of the Basic Structure Doctrine, as recognized by the Supreme Court.
Preamble: Assures justice, liberty, and equality – foundational to Rule of Law.
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Article 13: Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void.
Articles 32 and 226: Provide mechanisms for judicial enforcement of rights.
🏛️ Working of the Rule of Law – Judicial Interpretation
Let’s explore the doctrine through detailed discussions of important Supreme Court cases:
🔸 1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) — (Habeas Corpus Case)
📌 Facts:
During the Emergency (1975), personal liberties were suspended.
Petitions were filed against illegal detentions under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
⚖️ Decision:
The majority held that during Emergency, even Article 21 can be suspended, and no court remedy is available.
🧾 Significance:
Violation of Rule of Law — Supreme Court upheld executive dominance over individual liberty.
Heavily criticized, later overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan cases.
🔸 2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
📌 Facts:
Concerned Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Petitioners challenged constitutional amendments that affected fundamental rights.
⚖️ Decision:
Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Rule of Law recognized as an essential part of the basic structure.
🧾 Significance:
Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy Rule of Law.
🔸 3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
📌 Facts:
Indira Gandhi’s election was invalidated by Allahabad High Court.
Parliament passed a law to overturn the judgment, attempting to place election matters outside judicial review.
⚖️ Decision:
Supreme Court struck down the amendment as unconstitutional.
Held that free and fair elections, judicial review, and Rule of Law are part of the basic structure.
🧾 Significance:
Government cannot exempt itself from legal scrutiny.
🔸 4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
📌 Facts:
Concerned the validity of laws placed under 9th Schedule (which was meant to protect land reform laws from judicial review).
Whether such laws can be immune from fundamental rights challenge.
⚖️ Decision:
Laws violating fundamental rights even in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review.
Rule of Law requires judicial scrutiny of all laws, irrespective of where they are placed.
🧾 Significance:
Reinforced that no law is above the Constitution.
🔸 5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
📌 Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving reasons or hearing.
⚖️ Decision:
The court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include due process of law.
Held that laws must be just, fair, and reasonable.
🧾 Significance:
Strengthened procedural safeguards and due process – vital aspects of Rule of Law.
🔸 6. State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003)
📌 Facts:
Concerned criminal proceedings and role of political interference.
Issue of equality before law and fair trial.
⚖️ Decision:
Reaffirmed that everyone is equal before law, regardless of status.
🧾 Significance:
Public officials and politicians are not above the law.
🔸 7. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — Right to Privacy Case
📌 Facts:
Challenge to Aadhaar and broader surveillance concerns.
Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right.
⚖️ Decision:
Right to Privacy is a part of Article 21.
Rule of Law includes constitutional limits on state power, individual autonomy, and freedom from arbitrary interference.
🧾 Significance:
Strengthened the concept of limited government and constitutional governance.
🔸 8. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) — Tribunals Case
📌 Facts:
Challenge to the structure of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Whether judicial powers can be exercised by tribunals.
⚖️ Decision:
Rule of Law requires that justice be dispensed by qualified and independent bodies.
Judicial functions cannot be arbitrarily delegated.
🧾 Significance:
Ensures independence of the judiciary — a core element of Rule of Law.
📊 Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Principle Related to Rule of Law |
|---|---|
| A.D.M. Jabalpur (1976) | Low point — Executive dominance, suspension of liberty |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Rule of Law = part of Basic Structure |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) | Rule of Law over political interest |
| I.R. Coelho (2007) | Judicial review essential, even for 9th Schedule laws |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Due process and fairness in State action |
| L.K. Advani (2003) | Equality before law — No one is above it |
| K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) | Rule of Law includes right to privacy and limited government |
| R. Gandhi Case (2010) | Judicial independence = Rule of Law |
⚖️ Key Components of Rule of Law in India
| Component | Constitutional Basis |
|---|---|
| Supremacy of Law | Articles 13, 14 |
| Equality Before Law | Article 14 |
| Due Process | Article 21 |
| Judicial Review | Articles 32, 226 |
| Accountability of Government | Article 300A, Doctrine of Basic Structure |
📌 Conclusion
The Rule of Law is central to Indian democracy.
It ensures that:
Arbitrary power is checked,
Rights are protected, and
Equality is upheld.
Through landmark judgments, the Indian judiciary has protected and enriched this doctrine, placing it at the heart of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments