RULE OF LAW
Rule of law means the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular laws. Rule of law is a weapon in the armoury of justice. It contains the doctrine of supremacy, it is basic and fundamental for a disciplined and organized country. A.V.Dicey in his book The Law of the constitution attributed three basic principles of the doctrine of rule of law they are:
Supremacy of law.
Equality before law
Predominance of legal spirit.
1) SUPREMACY OF LAW
The first principle of dicey is the supremacy of law it means that the rule of law means the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power or wide discretionary power. It excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even wide discretionary power.
2) EQUALITY BEFORE LAW
The second principle given by dicey is the equality of law. All persons were subject to one and the same law, and there were no separation tribunal or special courts of the government and other authorities. Rule of law implies,
a) Absence of special privileges for any government official or any other person.
b) All the person irrespective of status must be subjected to the ordinary court in the land.
c) Everyone should be governed by the law passed by the ordinary legislative organs of the state.
3) PREDOMINANCE OF LEGAL SPIRIT
Judge made constitution is the third principle given by dicey. Dicey stated that in many countries rights such as the right to personal liberty, freedom from arrest, freedom to hold public meetings, etc. are guaranteed by a written constitution. Those rights are the result of judicial decisions in concrete cases which have actually arisen between the parties. Dicey emphasized the role of the courts of law a guarantors of liberty and suggested that the rights would be secured more adequately if they were enforceable in the courts of law than by mere declaration of those rights in a document, as in the latter case, they can be ignored, curtailed or trampled upon.
RULE OF LAW IN INDIA
Indian embraced the Common law arrangement of equity conveyance which owes its starting points to British law, the premise of which is the Rule of Law. Uncertain broadly kept up with that the Englishman doesn't require Administrative law or any type of composed law to keep minds the public authority however that the Rule of Law and normal law would be to the point of guaranteeing the shortfall of chief intervention. While India additionally acknowledges and adheres to the idea of regular law, there are formal and composed laws to guarantee consistence.
The Constitution of India planned for India to be a nation administered by law and order. It gives that the constitution will be the preeminent power in the land and the official and the chief get their position from the constitution. Any law that is made by the assembly must be in congruity with the Constitute bombing which it will be announced invalid, this is accommodated under Article 13 (1). Article 21 gives a further check against subjective chief activity by expressing that no individual will be denied of his life or freedom besides as per the technique set up by law. Article 14 guarantees that all residents are equivalent and that no individual will be segregated based on sex, religion, race or spot of birth, at last, it guarantees that there is a partition of force between the three wings of the public authority and the leader and the assembly have no effect on the legal executive. By these techniques, the constitution satisfies every one of the prerequisites of Dicey's hypothesis to be perceived as a nation keeping the Guideline of Law. The Supreme Court of Indian has additionally reinforced this system through its different decisions, the first of them being, A D M Jabalpur v. Shivkanth Shukla. For this situation, the inquiry under the watchful eye of the court was whether there was any law and order in India separated from Article 21. This was with regards to suspension of implementation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 during the announcement of a crisis. The solution to most of the seat was in negative for the topic of law. Be that as it may, Justice H.R. Khanna disagreed from the greater part assessment and seen that: Indeed, even without Article 21 in the Constitution, the state has no ability to deny an individual of his life and freedom without the power of law. Without such sacredness of life and freedom, the differentiation between a rebellious society and one administered by laws would stop to have any significance. Rule of Law is presently the acknowledged standard of all acculturated societies.
The initial architects of India achieved what the remainder of the world however unimaginable set up a country that would adhere to the stated aim of the law and execute the Rule of Law. In all matters, for example, the security of the privileges of individuals, equivalent treatment under the steady gaze of the law, insurance against over the top mediation, the Constitution of India has given an adequate number of systems to guarantee that the Rule of Law is adhered to. Through its choices, the Courts have strived to build up these components and guarantee smooth equity conveyance to all residents. Issues, for example, obsolete regulation and packed courts are nevertheless little obstructions and bodies, for example, the Law Commission of India run after figuring out these issues fully intent on accomplishing a framework where there are no boundaries to the smooth activity of the Rule of Law.