Introduction

The Rule of Law concept is the supremacy of laws, and the doctrine of separation of power establishes that different heads or organs of government should exist. Each acting independently of the other, the Law of the StateState can be properly enforced, and the spirit of the Law is reflected in its enforcement.

Rules of Law:-

Concept of Rule of Law

Sir Edward Coke, the chief justice James II Reign was the original inventor of the concept rule of Law. The idea of the rule of Law has a long history. The term rule was first used in England. Around 350 BC, Plato and Aristotle, Greek philosophers, discussed the idea of the rule of Law.

The French phrase la principe de legalite, which means the principle of Law, is the source of the phrase “Rule of Law”. This expression refers to a government based on laws, not men. The rule of Law is one of the fundamental principles of the constitution. This concept is standard in both the Indian and American constitutions. Administrative Law is based on the doctrine of rule-of-law.

Meaning of Rule of Law

Understanding the rule of Law means that no one is above the Law and that everyone is subject to ordinary courts of Law regardless of their rank and position.

Rule of Law also requires that no one be subjected to harsh or arbitrary treatment. Rule of Law uses the word “law” to mean that regardless of whether he’s a man or a community, he must be governed only by Law and not by a ruler or man. This is Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. Rule of the Land.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Rule of Law” as legal principles of daily application that have been approved by the relevant authorities or governing bodies and presented as a logical proposition.

Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary defines “Rule of Law” as the condition in which the Law governs both the StateState and citizens.

Professor A.V Dicey, who in 1885 developed the concept of coke and outlined three principles, or postulates, of the rule law of Law in his classic book Law and the Constitution’. Professor A.V Dicey stated that in order to achieve supremacy of Law, three principles or postulates must also be followed. They are:

• Supremacy law
• Equality before the Law
• Judge-made Constitution

Supremacy law

Dicey defines the rule of Law as the absolute supremacy of or predominance or dominance of regular Law, rather than the influence of arbitrary powers or broad discretionary power.

It is the exclusion of arbitrariness by the government.

This basically means that no man can be held responsible for the arrest, punishment or lawful suffering in body or goods without the due process law and the breach of any law made in the usual legal manner before the ordinary courts in the land.

Equality

Dicey explained this aspect of the doctrine by stating that equality must precede the Law or equal subjection for all classes to the ordinary laws of the land as administered by the courts of ordinary Law.

Dicey believed that civil servants were exempted from the jurisdictions of ordinary courts of Law, and provided with special tribunals, was a negation of equality.

He said that any interference with the court’s jurisdiction or any restriction on the subject having unimpeded access to them would jeopardize his rights.

Judge made the constitution

Dicey noted that rights like personal liberty, freedom of arrest, and freedom to hold public meetings are all protected in many countries. A written constitution guarantees these rights; it is not in England.

These rights in England are the result of judicial decisions in specific cases that have actually arisen among the parties.

He emphasized the importance of the courts as guarantors for liberty and suggested that rights could be more effectively secured if they were made enforceable by the courts of justice than merely being declared in a document.

Law: UNITED KIND

Lord Tom Bingham says that the Rule of Law was largely adhered to by the United Kingdom. It could even be said that the Rule of Law was originally developed in the United Kingdom over centuries to defeat oppression and tyranny. Because there is no written constitution, many people mistakenly believe that Parliamentary Sovereignty is the ultimate authority to establish the substance and function of the constitution of the U.K. Many also confuse the sovereignty of U.K. with the Law as it is enacted in parliament by the queen. It must adhere to certain principles established by the standard law system and its historic commitment to constitutionalism. It would be an exaggeration to say that parliamentary sovereignty is an absolute power.

The role of the Judiciary to uphold the values of Rule of Law

The differences between the rulers and those being ruled led to the formation of the values that underpin the Rule of Law. This situation requires the involvement of a neutral third party to strike a balance among the differences between them. Thus, the role and function of the judiciary was to ensure that discretionary and arbitrarily-executed power is controlled and individual freedoms are protected. Over time, the role of the judiciary has grown significantly, and courts became the guardians of fundamental rights, thereby keeping the values of Rule of Law alive. Dicey favors emphasizing that the judiciary is responsible for safeguarding the Rule of Law’s merits by protecting the rights and liberties of the people. This involves interpreting statutes to prevent any transgression by the parliament onto the people’s liberties. The judiciary’s task ultimately aids in maintaining the balance between the Rule of Law and Parliamentary Sovereignty, while simultaneously expanding the people’s individual autonomy.

Recent decisions of both the House of Lords (and the Supreme Court) highlight the importance of the Rule of Law. The decision in Council of Civil Service Unions and Minister for the Service demonstrates the court’s ability to consider the prerogative power within its judicial review. The judiciary is now empowered to decide on prerogative power to prevent them from being arbitrarily exercised.

Walumba Lumba Lumba v. Secretary for the StateState for the Home Department, where the Supreme Court found that the Minister cannot apply the policy in a different way than it was. This is a declaration of support for the fair and impartial application of policies and legal rules.

The case of her Majesty’s Treasury v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed & Others illustrates the need for judicial oversight to maintain the rule of Law. Lord Hope said, “If the rule is to be understood as anything, the executive cannot make decisions about what is appropriate or expedient in this situation.” It is unacceptable to give the executive an unrestricted power to implement those resolutions it has made. This is contrary to the fundamental rules of democracy.

Rule of Law Under the Indian Constitution

The Preamble to the Constitution outlines the concepts of Justice, Liberty, and Equality. These concepts are further defined in Part III of this constitution and made enforceable. The three branches of government are all subordinate. The Executive, Judiciary and Legislature are all subordinate to the constitution. They are also bound to follow the Constitution’s provisions. For the enforcement of fundamental rights, the Constitution contains the doctrine of Judicial Review. The subjects can approach both the Supreme Court and the High Court to have it reaffirmed. The ordinary courts of justice can halt the actions of the government or Executive if they abuse the power that is vested in them.

Role in Indian Judiciary

Several cases were discussed that involved the notion of the rule of Law. These are just a few examples of cases:

Shivkant Shukla vs. ADM Jabalpur

The “Habeas corpus case also knows this case”. This case is a landmark in the history of the rule of Law. The hon’ble court was asked whether India had any other rule of Law than Article 21 of its Constitution. This was done in relation to an emergency declaration where Articles 21 and 22 were suspended.