Dicey’s theory of Rule of Law
Dicey’s Theory of Rule of Law
A.V. Dicey, a British jurist, is famously known for formulating the classical concept of the Rule of Law in his book, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885). His theory forms the backbone of constitutional and administrative law in many common law countries.
Dicey’s Three Main Pillars of Rule of Law:
Supremacy of Regular Law (Equality Before the Law):
No one, whether government official or private citizen, is above the law. Everyone is subject to ordinary law administered by ordinary courts. This opposes arbitrary power or discretionary rule by government officials.
Equality Before the Law:
Every person, regardless of status or rank, is equal before the law and entitled to equal protection by the law.
Constitution is Result of the Ordinary Law of the Land:
The constitution is not a separate set of laws but consists of rules and principles developed through judicial decisions on rights and liberties. This means constitutional principles evolve through court judgments rather than a codified document alone.
Additional Features According to Dicey:
No arbitrary power: No one can be punished or made liable except for breach of law established by ordinary courts.
Judicial independence: Courts must be independent and impartial.
Due process and fundamental rights protection: Rights are protected not by a special constitutional document but through ordinary laws and judicial enforcement.
Landmark Case Laws Illustrating Dicey’s Rule of Law
1. Entick v. Carrington (1765)
Court: King’s Bench (England)
Facts: The King’s messengers entered Entick’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by a government secretary without any statutory authority. Entick sued for trespass.
Held:
Lord Camden held the search unlawful, stating government officials can only act according to law, not arbitrary orders. The state cannot invade private property without legal justification.
Principle:
Upholds Dicey’s rule of law pillar that government officials must act under established law, no arbitrary powers.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
Court: House of Lords (UK)
Facts: Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself, i.e., no hearing or inquiry before dismissal.
Held:
Dismissal was unlawful because the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) requires that a person must be heard before adverse action is taken.
Principle:
Reaffirms that even the executive must act according to law and respect procedural fairness, supporting Dicey's emphasis on equality before the law and due process.
3. Liversidge v. Anderson (1942)
Court: House of Lords (UK)
Facts: During wartime, the Home Secretary detained a person without trial, claiming “reasonable cause” for detention. The court initially deferred to executive discretion.
Held:
Lord Atkin dissented famously arguing for strict judicial scrutiny and the supremacy of law, asserting executive power is limited by law.
Principle:
Illustrates tension between executive discretion and rule of law. Lord Atkin’s dissent emphasized Dicey’s ideal that government power must be checked by law.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without hearing or sufficient reason. She challenged the order as violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Held:
The court held that any law or action depriving liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable and comply with the procedure established by law (expanding the meaning of due process).
Principle:
Strengthens Dicey’s theory by introducing the requirement of substantive fairness and judicial review over executive action.
5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case challenged amendments to the Constitution limiting fundamental rights.
Held:
The court held the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that the constitution cannot be amended to destroy its basic features, including the rule of law.
Principle:
Protects Dicey’s idea that constitutional supremacy is linked to the rule of law and judicial safeguards against arbitrary changes.
6. Somersett’s Case (1772)
Court: King’s Bench (England)
Facts: James Somersett, an escaped slave, was to be forcibly sent back to the colonies as a slave.
Held:
Lord Mansfield ruled that slavery was unsupported by English law and Somersett must be freed.
Principle:
Showcases the principle that no person can be deprived of liberty arbitrarily, reinforcing Dicey's ideas of equality before the law.
7. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The government appointed a commission to investigate a matter and passed orders without following fair procedure.
Held:
Court held that administrative authorities must follow principles of natural justice.
Principle:
Supports Dicey’s theory by requiring government action to be accountable, fair, and in accordance with law.
Summary of How These Cases Reflect Dicey’s Rule of Law
| Dicey’s Pillar | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Supremacy of Law | Entick v. Carrington | Officials can act only under lawful authority |
| Equality Before Law | Somersett’s Case | No one is above law, including slaves |
| Due Process & Natural Justice | Ridge v. Baldwin, Maneka Gandhi | Fair hearing and procedure mandatory |
| Judicial Review & Limitation on Power | Liversidge v. Anderson (dissent), Kraipak | Courts can limit arbitrary executive power |
| Constitution & Basic Structure | Kesavananda Bharati | Protects rule of law as constitutional basic |
Conclusion
Dicey’s Rule of Law remains a foundational principle of constitutionalism, emphasizing legality, fairness, and equality. The cases discussed demonstrate how courts uphold this doctrine by limiting arbitrary power, ensuring fair procedures, and protecting fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments