Absence Of Rule Of Law Propels A Country Towards Inevitable Ruin, Duty Of Court To Take Strict View Of..

πŸ”· Meaning and Concept: Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle of governance, implying that:

No one is above the law – whether citizen or government.

Law must govern a nation, as opposed to arbitrary decisions of individual rulers.

Laws should be just, publicized, stable, and applied evenly.

Legal processes must be fair and accessible to all.

The rule of law ensures accountability, transparency, and equality. In its absence, power tends to become concentrated, arbitrary, and oppressive, leading to collapse of institutions, erosion of citizens' trust, and ultimately the ruin of the country.

πŸ”· Impact of the Absence of Rule of Law

Where the rule of law is absent:

Governance becomes arbitrary, dictated by whims of individuals in power.

Corruption flourishes, as institutions lack oversight and accountability.

Human rights are trampled, and justice becomes inaccessible.

Citizens lose faith in state mechanisms.

Civil unrest and authoritarianism may rise, destabilizing the country.

Hence, the inevitable ruin refers to the political, economic, and moral decay of a nation that does not uphold the rule of law.

πŸ”· Duty of Courts in Upholding Rule of Law

Courts are the final guardians of constitutional and legal order. It is their solemn duty to:

Ensure that executive and legislative actions conform to law.

Resist arbitrary exercises of power.

Protect the rights and liberties of the citizens.

Maintain the delicate balance of power in a constitutional democracy.

A "strict view" means the courts must not take violations lightly or allow leniency where the rule of law is compromised. Judicial inaction or lenience in such matters may be interpreted as complicity or weakness, eroding public confidence in the judiciary itself.

πŸ”· Key Judicial Observations (Case Law)

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Supreme Court held that rule of law is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. It cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment.

πŸ“Œ Significance: Even the highest legislative authority is subject to the rule of law. This underscores that no entity is above the law, and courts are duty-bound to strike down any act violating this principle.

2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) (Later criticized and overruled)

In this case, the majority held that during Emergency, even the right to life could be suspended. However, the judgment faced severe criticism for failing to uphold the rule of law.

πŸ“Œ Aftermath: The Supreme Court later admitted that this decision was wrong and a black mark on Indian constitutionalism.

πŸ“Œ Lesson: When courts fail to take a strict view, the consequences can be historically damaging. Upholding rule of law is non-negotiable, even in crises.

3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to immunize the Prime Minister's election from judicial review.

πŸ“Œ Observation: The judiciary emphasized that democracy rests on rule of law and judicial review is integral to maintaining it.

4. State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh (1997)

The court observed:

β€œThe rule of law is the basic feature of the Constitution, which pervades the whole fabric of the Constitution and excludes arbitrary action.”

πŸ“Œ Interpretation: The judiciary reaffirms its duty to strictly review arbitrary actions, reinforcing that rule of law must prevail over all else.

πŸ”· Conclusion

The absence of rule of law doesn't merely affect the functioning of institutions; it corrodes the very soul of a nation. In such a context:

Courts have a sacred duty to act swiftly and strictly.

No compromise can be made when the foundational principles of legality and justice are under threat.

History has shown that when judiciary fails to uphold rule of law, the country drifts towards authoritarianism or chaos.

The courts must act as stern sentinels, not passive observers. Any dilution of judicial strictness in such matters is a betrayal of constitutional morality and democratic values.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments