Rule of law or Rule of Police?
Rule of Law vs. Rule of Police
Introduction:
The terms Rule of Law and Rule of Police represent two contrasting approaches to governance and administration of justice.
Rule of Law means that everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law.
Rule of Police suggests arbitrary power exercised by police or executive authorities, often bypassing legal norms, leading to misuse or abuse of power.
Rule of Law: Meaning and Importance
The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle in constitutional democracies.
It means that laws govern a nation, not arbitrary decisions by individuals.
It ensures equality before law, accountability, transparency, and protection of fundamental rights.
It limits the powers of the government and protects citizens from unlawful actions.
Originated from legal philosophers like A.V. Dicey, who described it as the "supremacy of law over arbitrary power."
Rule of Police: Meaning and Dangers
Rule of Police implies governance based on force, fear, and discretionary power of police or executive authorities.
It often results in arbitrary arrests, detentions without trial, excessive use of force, and violation of civil liberties.
It leads to lawlessness rather than law and undermines democracy.
Sometimes termed as “police raj”, denoting excessive police control or oppression.
Key Differences:
| Rule of Law | Rule of Police |
|---|---|
| Governance based on laws and constitutional principles | Governance based on arbitrary use of power by police |
| Ensures protection of fundamental rights and due process | Violates rights, ignores due process |
| Accountability and transparency in actions | Lack of accountability and secretive actions |
| Courts act as watchdogs | Police act as overlords |
| Promotes justice, fairness, and equality | Promotes fear, oppression, and discrimination |
Constitutional Safeguards in India:
Article 14: Equality before the law.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty (includes protection against arbitrary arrest and detention).
Article 22: Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Judiciary ensures police and executive function within the ambit of law.
Landmark Case Laws:
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21.
Held that any action depriving personal liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable”.
Emphasized that rule of law must prevail, not arbitrary police action.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963)
The Court condemned excessive police surveillance and arbitrary powers.
Reinforced the need to curb police excesses in line with constitutional protections.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Issued detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
Held that police must follow strict procedures, respecting the rule of law.
4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Laid down principles for arrest and detention.
Arrest cannot be made arbitrarily; there must be reasonable suspicion and compliance with legal safeguards.
5. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
Highlighted that rule of law means government actions must conform to law.
Arbitrary actions violate constitutional guarantees.
Why is Rule of Law Essential?
Prevents tyranny and abuse of power.
Ensures justice and fairness.
Protects minority rights and vulnerable sections.
Strengthens democracy by ensuring accountability.
When Rule of Police Prevails — Consequences:
Human rights violations.
Erosion of public trust in law enforcement.
Breakdown of democratic institutions.
Increase in arbitrary arrests, custodial violence.
Social unrest and insecurity.
Conclusion:
Rule of Law is the cornerstone of a democratic society where laws govern everyone impartially, and rights are protected. The Rule of Police represents a breakdown of this principle where law enforcement agencies wield unchecked power, often violating rights and liberties.
The Indian judiciary, through its landmark judgments, has consistently upheld the Rule of Law and imposed checks on police powers to prevent arbitrariness, reinforcing that “Law governs, not men.”
RELATED Blog
0 comments