Rule of law in Indian Constitution
Rule of Law in the Indian Constitution: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Introduction
The Rule of Law is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution, embodying the idea that:
The government and its officials are subject to the law.
No one, including the executive, legislature, or judiciary, is above the law.
Laws must be clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly.
Protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary state action.
Although the phrase “Rule of Law” is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, it is inherent in the constitutional framework, especially in Articles 14, 19, and 21.
2. Rule of Law in Indian Constitutional Context
Article 14 (Equality before law) embodies the essence of Rule of Law by forbidding arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) ensures the state cannot deprive a person of life or liberty except by a “procedure established by law.”
The Basic Structure Doctrine developed by the Supreme Court affirms Rule of Law as part of the Constitution’s basic structure, which cannot be altered by amendments.
3. Key Case Laws Illustrating Rule of Law in India
A. A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras (1950) 1 SCR 300
Facts:
A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act.
He challenged his detention arguing violation of his fundamental rights.
Issue:
Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 was satisfied.
Holding:
The Supreme Court took a narrow view of “procedure established by law,” stating that the law need not be “fair” or “just,” just that it exists.
This judgment was later overruled.
Significance:
Early interpretation of Article 21 showed limits in protecting against arbitrary state action.
Emphasized the need for substantive justice to uphold Rule of Law.
B. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without a hearing.
She challenged the action as violating her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Issue:
Whether the procedure established by law must be “just, fair and reasonable.”
Holding:
The Supreme Court expanded Article 21 to include the requirement that the procedure must be “just, fair, and reasonable.”
It held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected.
Arbitrary and unfair laws or executive actions violate Rule of Law.
Significance:
Landmark case strengthening Rule of Law.
Established substantive due process principles in India.
Administrative action must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.
C. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Facts:
Challenge to constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights.
Issue:
Whether Parliament can amend the Constitution including fundamental rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Rule of Law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy Rule of Law.
Significance:
Ensures that Rule of Law is inviolable and supreme over parliamentary actions.
Protects constitutionalism and limits arbitrary changes.
D. S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 149 (The Judges’ Transfer Case)
Facts:
Challenge against arbitrary transfers of judges by the executive.
Issue:
Whether the executive can transfer judges without consultation or transparent criteria.
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized the independence of judiciary as essential to Rule of Law.
Arbitrary interference with judiciary violates Rule of Law.
Significance:
Reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers.
Judicial independence is a core element of Rule of Law.
E. Kharak Singh v State of UP (1963) 1 SCR 332
Facts:
Challenge against police surveillance and domiciliary visits.
Issue:
Whether such surveillance violated Article 21 and principles of Rule of Law.
Holding:
Court recognized that liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
Surveillance without clear legal authority violated Rule of Law.
Significance:
Protects privacy and personal liberty from arbitrary state intrusion.
Extends Rule of Law to protect individual rights.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Contribution to Rule of Law |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras | Early interpretation of Article 21; narrow view of law. |
| Maneka Gandhi v Union of India | Expanded Article 21; procedure must be fair and just. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v Kerala | Rule of Law is part of basic structure; limits Parliament. |
| S.P. Gupta v Union of India | Judicial independence vital for Rule of Law. |
| Kharak Singh v UP | Protection against arbitrary surveillance; privacy rights. |
5. Conclusion
The Rule of Law in India is deeply entrenched in the Constitution’s spirit and judicial interpretation. It protects citizens from arbitrary power, ensures fair procedures, and maintains the separation of powers. The judiciary plays a critical role in safeguarding this principle by reviewing executive and legislative actions for conformity with constitutional norms.
The above cases collectively demonstrate the evolution and strengthening of the Rule of Law in India’s constitutional jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments