Rule of Law

Rule of law as prescribed by many scholars is supremacy of law. The presence of rule of law refers to
absence of arbitrariness. The term �Rule of law' had been derived from the French Term- La Principe De
Legalite (given by Edward Coke) meaning Principle of Legality. The exponent of term Rule of Law is Albert Vin
Dicey who in his book- The law of Constitution had defined the term as- Supremacy of law, Equality before law
and Predominance of Legal spirit. Rule of Law means that a country is governed by law of that country and not
be government. In short, king is not the law but law is the ultimate king.

Rule of law in a country refers that the whole country is under the control of law and authorities governing the
country gets its power from the basic law of the country. In India, concept of Rule of Law came from England.
The first two pillars of Dicey's definition is applicable as it is in India but the third one i.e. predominance of
legal spirit is not applicable in India, which states that law should be according to justice and not vice- versa.
Constitution derives from the various legislations of the country and judicial precedents which is not there in
India.

Opposite to this, in India, Constitution is the grundnorm of country and all the other statutes introduced in India
complying with Constitution and if any of the legislation made is violating any provision of Constitution, then it
will be null and void. Part from this, the traces of first 2 pillars of Dicey's definition of Rule of Law can be seen
in the Indian Constitution under Art. 14, 19 and 21.

Theoretical Application of Rule of Law in India

India had adopted Common law system (Rule of law) for justice mechanism. Indian Constitution governs the
whole nation. No one is above constitution and every authority had derived its power from the Indian
Constitution. Moreover, restrictions have been imposed on such authorities so that no authority could misuse
their powers and thus, ends arbitrary rule from the country. Rule of law and principle of Natural Justice are
enough to ensure the equality among all and no one is above law.

There are several provisions in Indian Constitution which ensures that Rule of law is prevailing in the country.
Art. 13 ensure that any law made or amendment in law by legislature should be in compliance with
Constitution and should not violate it. Any law made against Constitutional provision should be declared null
and void.

Art. 14 says equality before law i.e. �everyone is equal in the eyes of law and no one is above law�. Every
person is required to follow the law and whosoever does any conduct not permissible by law should be
penalized. Further on, Art. 15 and 16 are extended version of Art. 14. Art. 15 prohibit discrimination on the basis
of religion, region, sex, caste, or place of birth from entering into any public places and Art. 16 prohibit
discrimination in providing employment opportunity. Art. 21 prescribes that no one should be deprived form his
right to life or personal liberty except by the due procedure established by law.

In A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 Supreme Court held that India being a welfare state follows
rule of law mechanism.

In case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1283(Habeas Corpus case), majority bench in SC held
that there is no other provision of Rule of Law than Art. 21 but, dissenting with majority opinion J. HR Khanna
observed that even in the absence of Art. 21 State could not deprive a person from his life or personal liberty
unless having authority of law.

Rule of Law was considered as basic structure of Indian Constitution in Keshavananda Bharti case. Thus
cannot be amended. Henceforth, impliedly ROL is superior to all other authorities.

Court judgments have been critical in countering any arbitrary nature on the behalf of a nation. In Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court ascertained that the government's arbitrary exercise of
power would violate people's rights. The Supreme Court interpreted Article 14 of the Indian Constitution as well
as widened its scope in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973). The Apex Court stated that this
article added a new meaning to the rule of law, and it was regarded as a safeguard against arbitrariness.

Practical Application of Rule of Law in India:

Where on the one hand it is theoretically proven that Rule of Law in India does exist, there, on the other hand,
its practical application is still a debatable question. Several critical thinkers believe that ROL in India is merely
in books but not in practice. According to World Justice Project Report (2015), India is at 59th position in Rule of
law index. India being the one of the most corrupted countries, thus there are several challenges faced while
making law and order for the country and delivering justice.

Majority of the legislations are those which have been formed by colonial powers before independence, being
continue to exist unless expressedly repealed by parliament. This leads to vagueness and endless litigations
are to be filed for correct interpreting it. The main purpose of Rule of Law i.e. securing justice to all which is not
served in actual as no proper mechanism is followed at all. Public has resorted to violence against legislations
passed by Parliament. The latest example is that violence does against passing of Citizenship Amendment Act.
This resulted into Rule of Law has been just a de jure concept while in de facto, Rule of men is prevalent.

Then another incident which shows the rule of law is not there in actual practice is that of Khap Panchayat
(extra- constitutional body) whose decision are mainly considered as crime under IPC, 1860 and they don't
have any guilt for their decisions and don't bother about other's life or personal liberty. The practice of Honour
Killing where killing of family member as they believe that victims had brought dishonor to their family by not
following the rule of their community. Several guidelines have been issued by Courts but still there is no
decrease in number of honour killings.

Another case is Sabarimala Case, where men do not bother about the verdict of apex court of country. In this
case, Supreme Court had allowed women of menstruating age (i.e. 10- 50 years) to enter into the temple of
Lord Ayappa in Kerala for worshipping purpose, but after the verdict, instead of following it, people in large
amount protested against it. Women were not allowed by temple priests and local people to enter into temple
and exercise her constitutional right. Hence Rule of law violated as equality was denied.