Interpretations of rule of law
⚖️ Rule of Law: Detailed Explanation
What is the Rule of Law?
The Rule of Law is a foundational principle in constitutional and administrative law which requires that:
Everyone, including the government, is subject to the law.
Laws are clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly.
Legal processes are fair, and rights are protected.
Arbitrary power or discretionary authority without legal basis is prohibited.
The Rule of Law ensures government accountability, prevents tyranny, and protects individual rights and liberties.
🔍 Different Interpretations of the Rule of Law
1. Formal (Procedural) Interpretation
Focuses on the manner in which laws are made and applied.
Laws must be clear, general, and not retroactive.
Emphasizes legality and the absence of arbitrary power.
2. Substantive Interpretation
Goes beyond procedures to include content of laws.
Laws must respect fundamental rights and justice.
Protects individuals from unjust or oppressive laws.
3. T. H. Green’s Interpretation
Views Rule of Law as enabling individual freedom through legal frameworks.
Laws should not only restrain but also enable individuals to achieve their potential.
4. Dicey’s Interpretation
The Rule of Law consists of three main elements:
No arbitrary power — no one punished except for breach of law.
Equality before the law.
The constitution is the result of judicial decisions enforcing rights.
🧾 Key Case Law on Rule of Law
1. Entick v Carrington (1765)
Facts:
State agents entered Entick’s property and seized papers without legal authority.
Issue:
Whether the search and seizure were lawful.
Holding:
The court held the action unlawful because there was no legal justification for the seizure.
Significance:
Established the principle that government officials must act within the law, laying groundwork for the Rule of Law in limiting arbitrary state power.
2. R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts:
The government intended to trigger Article 50 (begin Brexit) without Parliamentary approval.
Issue:
Whether the government could exercise prerogative powers without Parliament.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that an Act of Parliament was required, reinforcing Parliamentary sovereignty under the Rule of Law.
Significance:
Highlighted that even executive power is subject to legal limits and Parliamentary approval is necessary for major constitutional changes.
3. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968)
Facts:
Minister refused to refer complaints without giving reasons.
Issue:
Whether ministerial discretion could be exercised arbitrarily.
Holding:
Court held discretion must be exercised within the scope of the law and for the purposes intended by Parliament.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that all public powers are constrained by law, a core tenet of the Rule of Law.
4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Facts:
The Commission made an error of law, but the statute said its decisions were "final."
Issue:
Whether courts could review the decision.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that an error of law rendered the decision a nullity and courts could review it.
Significance:
Demonstrated that Rule of Law prevents ouster of judicial review, protecting against unlawful administrative actions.
5. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms (1999)
Facts:
Prisoners challenged restrictions on their rights to communicate with journalists.
Issue:
Whether such restrictions violated fundamental rights.
Holding:
The court held that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous legislation.
Significance:
Reinforced the substantive Rule of Law, requiring respect for fundamental human rights in legal interpretation.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Entick v Carrington | 1765 | No state action without legal authority (limits arbitrary power) |
| Miller v Secretary of State (Brexit) | 2017 | Executive power subject to parliamentary approval |
| Padfield v Minister | 1968 | Public powers must be exercised lawfully and for proper purposes |
| Anisminic Ltd v FCC | 1969 | Courts retain judicial review even if statute says decision is "final" |
| R v Home Secretary, ex parte Simms | 1999 | Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by ambiguous legislation |
✅ Conclusion
The Rule of Law is both a procedural and substantive safeguard in the legal system. It limits arbitrary authority, ensures fairness, protects rights, and preserves constitutional governance. Its interpretation has evolved through landmark cases, shaping modern administrative and constitutional law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments