Rule of Law
The idea of the Rule of Law is most famously associated with A. V. Dicey, the English jurist who articulated it in his classic work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885). Dicey’s conception of the Rule of Law is often summarized in the phrase: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” At its core, the doctrine rejects the idea that rulers, kings, or political authorities can place themselves above legal accountability.
Dicey broke down the Rule of Law into three key components:
- Supremacy of Law – No individual, regardless of power or position, is above the law. Arbitrary power or unfettered discretion of rulers is inconsistent with the idea of constitutionalism.
- Equality Before Law – Every person, whether rich or poor, king or commoner, is subject to the same laws and the same legal institutions. This principle directly opposed the medieval doctrine of sovereign immunity where “the King can do no wrong.” The evolution of this principle can be traced back to thinkers like King Bracton, who argued that “the King is under no man, but under God and the law.”
- Predominance of Legal Spirit – Law is not just about written codes, but about fairness, reasonableness, and justice. The legal system must embody a spirit of legality, ensuring that no authority acts in an arbitrary or oppressive manner.
Together, these principles sought to guarantee both formal equality and protection against arbitrary state power.
Rule of Law in the Indian Constitutional Context
In India, the Rule of Law finds explicit mention through the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees “equality before law” and “equal protection of the laws.” The former draws from Dicey’s conception of equality, while the latter reflects the American doctrine requiring laws to operate uniformly without discrimination.
However, the Rule of Law in India has developed through judicial interpretation, particularly in landmark constitutional cases:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
During the Emergency era, the Supreme Court examined whether the Rule of Law was a basic feature of the Constitution. The case revolved around whether the principle of equality, contained in Article 14, was fundamental to constitutional identity.
Majority view (Mathew and Beg, JJ.) rejected the idea that equality as a broad principle existed outside Articles 14–16. They argued that any attempt to treat “equality” or “Rule of Law” as part of the basic structure would invite judicial subjectivity. Judges, under such reasoning, could define the “core” of any constitutional provision according to personal interpretation.
Minority view, however, treated equality and Rule of Law as transcending specific provisions, forming part of the Constitution’s deeper fabric.
This debate laid the foundation for India’s ongoing struggle between judicial restraint and judicial activism.
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
In the early years, the Court adopted a restrictive approach. Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to “procedure established by law.” Unlike the American Constitution, which enshrines “due process of law,” the Indian framers deliberately rejected this phrase due to its vagueness and the fear of giving excessive power to the judiciary.
In Gopalan, the majority ruled that procedure established by law meant only a law duly enacted by the legislature, regardless of its fairness or reasonableness. As long as a law was validly passed, the courts had no authority to examine its content.
The minority, however, hinted that “procedure” must carry an element of fairness, gesturing toward a substantive understanding of due process.
The Court in this case looked to comparative constitutional experiences, particularly Japan, where the U.S. had influenced the drafting of their constitution. The Japanese Supreme Court later recognized a form of substantive due process, but in 1950 the Indian majority refused to do so.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The true turning point came with the Maneka Gandhi case, where the Court transformed its interpretation of Article 21. The Court held that the “procedure” under Article 21 could not be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable. It had to satisfy the tests of fairness, justness, and reasonableness.
This effectively introduced procedural due process into Indian constitutional law, despite its earlier rejection in the Constituent Assembly.
The Court also read Articles 14, 19, and 21 together, creating a triad of rights that collectively protect individual liberty.
This expansive interpretation marked a decisive shift from the literalist Gopalan era toward a more liberal, rights-protective judiciary.
The Debate: Literal vs. Liberal Interpretations
The Rule of Law in India today rests on a delicate balance. On the one hand, a literal interpretation—where law simply means whatever legislature enacts—can allow unjust laws to strip individuals of rights. On the other hand, a too-liberal interpretation—where courts freely inject their own sense of fairness into law—can undermine the principle of separation of powers and give the judiciary excessive authority.
This tension necessitates what scholars call a “golden interpretation” of the Constitution. Courts must avoid both extremes: they cannot reduce themselves to rubber stamps of legislative enactments, nor can they arrogate to themselves the role of lawmakers. Instead, they must interpret laws in a manner that upholds constitutional morality, preserves democratic balance, and ensures fairness without collapsing into judicial overreach.
Conclusion
The Rule of Law in India has traveled a long path—from Dicey’s classical English formulation, to its constitutional embodiment in Article 14, to its transformation through judicial activism in cases like Maneka Gandhi. It remains one of the most contested and evolving principles of Indian constitutional law.
At its heart lies a simple but powerful truth: no one is above the law, and all power must be exercised within the bounds of legality and fairness. The Indian judiciary continues to wrestle with how best to honor this truth—sometimes erring on the side of restraint, at other times on the side of activism—but always with the recognition that the Rule of Law is the bedrock of constitutional democracy.
