Rule of Law under the Indian Constitution
Rule of Law under the Indian Constitution
What is the Rule of Law?
The Rule of Law is a fundamental constitutional principle which means:
No one is above the law. Every person, including government officials, is subject to the law.
Equality before the law. Laws must be applied equally and fairly.
Legal certainty and transparency. Laws should be clear, publicized, stable, and applied evenly.
Protection of fundamental rights. The State must respect and enforce rights within legal boundaries.
Prevention of arbitrariness and abuse of power. The government must exercise power according to law and not arbitrarily.
Rule of Law in the Indian Constitutional Context
The Indian Constitution does not expressly mention the phrase "Rule of Law," but the principle is deeply embedded in the scheme of the Constitution:
Article 14 (Equality before law and equal protection of laws) is a direct expression of rule of law.
Fundamental Rights such as Articles 19, 21, and others safeguard individuals against arbitrary State action.
The judiciary enforces the rule of law through judicial review — checking unconstitutional or illegal State actions.
The Constitution envisages a welfare State, but one that operates within legal limits, upholding constitutionalism and legality.
Landmark Case Laws on Rule of Law in India
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act. He challenged his detention claiming violation of fundamental rights.
Issue: Whether preventive detention violated Article 21 (right to life and liberty).
Court’s View:
This was the first major case dealing with fundamental rights post-independence.
The Court emphasized due process and legality, holding that no person can be deprived of liberty except by procedure established by law.
The principle of rule of law was implicit — the government’s power to detain must be exercised according to law, not arbitrarily.
Significance: It confirmed that even government action must be lawful and follow procedural safeguards.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without giving her a proper hearing.
Issue: Whether the procedure for depriving a citizen of personal liberty must be fair and just.
Court’s Ruling:
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21.
Held that "procedure established by law" must be fair, just and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive.
Connected Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and liberty), reinforcing the protection against arbitrary State action.
Significance:
This case strengthened the Rule of Law by emphasizing fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Government action must pass the test of reasonableness.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenged various constitutional amendments that curtailed fundamental rights.
Issue: Whether Parliament can amend the Constitution including fundamental rights.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Held that the Rule of Law is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Parliament cannot alter or destroy the essential features of the Constitution including Rule of Law.
Significance:
Affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and limits on legislative power.
Reaffirmed that all laws and actions must conform to constitutional principles, including Rule of Law.
4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts: Election of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was challenged for corrupt practices.
Issue: Whether the election was valid and if constitutional amendments curbing judicial review are permissible.
Court’s Ruling:
The Court struck down amendments that sought to immunize the election process from judicial scrutiny.
Re-emphasized that the Rule of Law includes judicial review as a safeguard against arbitrariness.
No one, including the Prime Minister, is above the law.
Significance:
Reiterated that executive and legislative actions are subject to the law and courts.
Judicial review is essential to uphold Rule of Law.
5. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments that gave unlimited power to the Parliament.
Issue: Whether unlimited parliamentary power violates the Constitution.
Court’s Ruling:
Held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.
Struck down amendments that destroyed this balance.
Affirmed that Rule of Law and judicial review cannot be abrogated.
Significance:
Emphasized that power must be exercised within constitutional limits.
The State cannot act arbitrarily or beyond law.
6. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
Facts: Public interest litigation concerning illegal activities by public officials and the functioning of CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).
Issue: Ensuring independent and fair investigation free from political interference.
Court’s Ruling:
Stressed the importance of Rule of Law in governance and anti-corruption.
Directed institutional reforms to uphold impartiality of investigations.
Observed that all citizens and officials are equal before law.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the rule of law as a bulwark against corruption and arbitrariness.
Emphasized accountability of the State and its functionaries.
7. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: Challenged the constitutional validity of tribunals replacing High Courts for judicial review.
Issue: Whether judicial review of administrative action can be ousted by setting up tribunals.
Court’s Ruling:
Held that judicial review is a basic structure feature of the Constitution.
No law can oust the jurisdiction of High Courts or Supreme Court to review administrative actions.
Strengthened Rule of Law by ensuring courts remain guardians against arbitrary administrative decisions.
Significance:
Affirmed supremacy of judiciary in maintaining Rule of Law.
Preserved the right to seek legal remedy against State action.
Summary of Key Principles from these Cases:
| Principle | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Legality of State Action | A.K. Gopalan | State action must be backed by valid law; no arbitrary detention. |
| Fair Procedure & Non-Arbitrariness | Maneka Gandhi | Procedures depriving liberty must be just, fair, reasonable. |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Kesavananda Bharati | Rule of Law is a fundamental feature; Parliament limited by it. |
| Judicial Review & Equality | Indira Gandhi, L. Chandra Kumar | Courts must scrutinize State action; no one is above the law. |
| Balance of Rights and Directive Principles | Minerva Mills | Power must be exercised within constitutional bounds. |
| Accountability & Anti-Corruption | Vineet Narain | Officials are accountable to law; impartial investigations needed. |
Conclusion:
The Rule of Law under the Indian Constitution is a dynamic, living principle embedded through fundamental rights, constitutional structure, and judicial enforcement. It safeguards against arbitrary power, ensures equality, and preserves constitutional democracy.
These cases reflect how the Supreme Court has expanded, interpreted, and enforced Rule of Law — ensuring government actions are lawful, fair, and accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments