Rule of Law in Administrative Law

The term "Rule of Law" comes from the French expression 'La Principe de Legalite,' meaning the principle of legality. It refers to a government system based on law and justice, in contrast to a dictatorship.

The rule of law is a fundamental principle in the English Constitution and is also accepted in the Constitutions of the USA and India. It is a core foundation of Administrative Law.

The concept was first introduced by Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice during King James I's reign. He argued that the King should be subject to God and the law, emphasizing the supremacy of the law over the monarchy. The idea is that nothing can go against the law.

The concept of the rule of law is ancient, dating back to the time of Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who lived around 350 BC.

Similarly, Aristotle supported the idea of the Rule of Law, stating that "the law should rule, and those in power should be servants of the laws."

According to Prof. A.V. Dicey, "the rule of law means the complete dominance of regular law over arbitrary power. It prevents the government from acting arbitrarily or having excessive discretionary authority."

Supremacy of Law

The first principle of the Rule of Law states that "no one can be punished or legally made to suffer in person or property unless they have clearly broken a law, and this is determined through the ordinary legal process in regular courts."

This principle underscores the idea that the law applies to everyone, including those who make and enforce the laws. Lawmakers must follow the law and cannot use their power arbitrarily; they must justify their actions based on the law.

Equality Before the Law

As the phrase suggests, no one is above the law. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, meaning there should be no distinction between the rich and the poor, officials and non-officials, or the majority and minority. Everyone should be treated equally, with no one being treated better or worse than anyone else.

Predominance of Legal Spirit

There must be an authority to enforce the law, and Dicey believed this authority should be the courts. The courts are responsible for upholding the rule of law and must remain impartial and free from outside influences. Therefore, judicial independence is a crucial aspect of the rule of law.

It's commonly believed that civil liberties come from a written constitution, but this isn't always the case. For example, Britain has an unwritten constitution. In England, the true source of law is the "spirit of the law," which is reflected in customs, public meetings, and judicial decisions. Dicey argued that individual rights and freedoms are better protected in Britain than in France due to this spirit of the law.

Basic Aspects of A.V. Dicey's Rule of Law in Administrative Law

• The law does not grant special rights to any individual or group.
• The law does not differentiate between people based on religion, race, gender, etc.
• No one is punished without a fair trial.
• Everyone is judged by the same courts under the same laws.
• The rule of law does not allow absolute or arbitrary power to those in authority.

Merits and Demerits of A.V. Dicey's Concept of the Rule of Law

Merits

• Helps limit the powers of those in authority.
• Played a significant role in the development and realization of administrative law.
• Serves as a standard for evaluating administrative actions.

Demerits

• His views were not fully accepted at the time.
• Failed to distinguish between free will and unchecked power.
• Did not fully understand the successful application of Droit administratif in France.

Modern Concept of Rule of Law in Administrative Law

The rule of law is a dynamic and influential concept, not a static legal system. The International Commission of Jurists discussed this idea in 1959 in New Delhi, leading to the following key points:

• The law should "protect and promote the political and social rights of individuals in a free society."
• It should help create social, economic, educational, and cultural conditions that allow people to achieve their rightful aspirations and maintain their dignity.
• The law should not interfere with religious beliefs, freedom of speech, or personal freedom.
• There should be no discrimination against minority groups.
• Safeguards must be in place to prevent the abuse of power by authorities.
• Courts should operate independently and without interference from the law and government.
• The rule of law requires an independent legal profession.

Applicability of the Concept of Rule of Law in Administrative Law in India

In ancient and medieval India, the concept of the rule of law in Administrative Law was not recognized. The king was seen as the ultimate source of justice and the protector of all laws, and was considered above the law.

During British rule, the principle of the Rule of Law was not emphasized, despite its importance in Britain. The East India Company was more focused on expanding its trade, revenue, and territory, giving little attention to law enforcement and fair justice.

Theoretical Application of Rule of Law in Administrative Law in India

The Indian Constitution aims to make India a law-abiding nation, with the Constitution being the supreme authority. Lawmakers and administrators derive their power from it, and any law passed by the legislature must comply with the Constitution. If a law does not align with the Constitution, it is considered invalid, as stated in Article 13(1).

Article 21 ensures that no person can be deprived of their life or liberty except according to the law, providing a check on the actions of the government. Article 14 guarantees equality for all citizens and prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, or place of origin. This separation of powers among the three branches of government ensures that neither the executive nor the legislature can influence the courts.

These provisions align with Dicey's concept of the rule of law, making India a country committed to upholding this principle.

Practical Application of Rule of Law under Administrative Law in India

Critics often argue that the Rule of Law in India is more of an ideal than a reality. While corruption is a significant issue in the country, there have been strides toward improving governance and democracy. According to the 2012 World Justice Project, India ranked 37th out of 97 countries in limiting government powers and holding the government accountable. It was ranked first among five countries in its region and second among 23 low-income countries. However, the practical application of the rule of law doesn't always align with its theoretical principles. For instance, India ranks poorly in process efficiency, non-corruption, and order and security, ranking 83rd and 96th globally.

In addition to corruption, India's legal system faces challenges due to outdated laws that still exist. The country does not regularly repeal old laws, and after independence, the Indian Independence Act allowed all existing colonial laws to continue unless specifically revoked by parliament. While this provided a stable legal foundation post-independence, many of these laws are now outdated and difficult to interpret in the modern context. This leads to confusion and lengthy debates over their application.

Judiciary's Role in Upholding the Rule of Law in Indian Administrative Law

There have been several cases in India where the concept of the rule of law in Administrative Law was discussed. Some of these cases include:

• Adm Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla: Also known as the Habeas Corpus case, this is one of the most significant cases concerning the rule of law in India. The main question before the court was whether there is any legal authority in India beyond Article 21 of the Constitution. This issue arose during the declaration of emergency when the enforcement of Articles 14, 21, and 22 was suspended.
• Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the rule of law is one of the most important principles of the Constitution.
• Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab v. Om Prakash: In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted that one of the most important aspects of our Constitutional system is the concept of the rule of law. This means that courts have the authority to review all administrative actions to ensure they comply with the law. If an administrative action fails to meet legal standards, it can be overturned if the affected party brings it to the court's attention.
• Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi: The Constitutional Bench of the Court stated: "It is clear that upholding the principle of equality in public service is a fundamental aspect of our Constitution, and the rule of law is the foundation of our Constitutional law. Ignoring the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14, read together with Article 16 of the Constitution, is unacceptable."

Conclusion

The Rule of Law means that decisions must be based on established principles and laws, making them predictable so that citizens know their rights and obligations. It excludes the use of arbitrary power.

From the discussion above, it can be concluded that the essence of the law is its purpose, and the rule of law is the best means to achieve that purpose. The courts have made efforts to link the Rule of Law with Human Rights. They have developed strategies to compel the government not only to enact laws but also to create conditions where people can exercise their rights fairly and clearly. In Indian society, the concept of the rule of law in Administrative Law has not always achieved the desired results. However, there are instances where the law has been upheld by the courts, ensuring justice through new mechanisms, such as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), to address human rights violations.