A legal Perspective on the Doctrine of Rule of Law

Introduction

The doctrine of the Rule of Law is not merely a philosophical ideal but the constitutional backbone of modern democracies. It asserts that law, not arbitrary power, governs society, ensuring equality, accountability, and protection of rights. Yet its application is neither absolute nor uncontested. Emergencies, political realities, and social inequalities often test its resilience. This paper argues that while the Rule of Law remains indispensable as a constitutional philosophy and safeguard against arbitrariness, its vitality depends on adaptability. By examining Dicey’s classical principles, Mahajan’s jurisprudential insights, and constitutional case law from India and abroad, it demonstrates that the Rule of Law must continually evolve to meet contemporary challenges if it is to sustain justice and democratic governance.

Meaning of Doctrine of Rule of Law (Regula Juris)

Rule of Law[1] means to be governed by law. It rests on Dicey’s three principles as;

• supremacy of law – no one is above the law
• equality before law – uniform application of law to all citizens, meaning there is no special privileges
• and predominance of legal spirit -courts safeguards rights through independent judiciary and become guardian of rights, which continue to shape Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The phrase originally derived from French ‘la principe de legalite’ (the principle of legality) which refers to a government based on principles of law and not of men. It is said in Latin phrase regula juris.

The quintessence of rule of law is that men do not govern, instead law does. It embodies the ethos of constitutionalism believing that there is no absolute authority and it is constrained by constitutional provisions and is said as a prevention of a totalitarianism and arbitrariness. The spirit of constitutionalism is restraining power, upholding rights, and ensuring governance through law and institutions rather than arbitrary will. It is the living soul of a constitution, making democracy meaningful and sustainable.  When government operates within the limits of law, bound by a constitution, and accountable to the people, governance is foreseeable, just and fair, and so does it transforms democracy into a meaningful and enduring system rooted in justice and liberty.

The Essential Elements of Doctrine of Rule of Law

In order to have an impartial and unbiased justice system, the following needs to be considered.

1. Supremacy of Law:

 Not an individual person, not even the government can act outside or above the law for law is above all authorities and soul. Just like Sir Edward Coke[2], the Chief Justice of King James I’s reign, the originator of this concept maintained, the King should be under God and the Law and he established the supremacy of the law against the executive and that there is nothing higher than law.  Papua New Guinea’s Section 11[3] affirms constitutional supremacy, echoing Coke’s principle that even rulers are bound by law. The European Union’s [4]enforcement actions against Hungary and Poland demonstrate how supranational institutions can hold member states accountable, showing Rule of Law as a transnational safeguard.

2. Equality Before Law:

Regardless of status, fame, wealth or position, every person is bound by the same rules. There is complete rejection of favours, discrimination of any kinds and arbitrary distinctions. From the British jurist’s Albert Venn Dicey[5]writing on the British constitution which is unwritten,” every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law and jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. No person should be made to suffer in body or deprived of his property except for a breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.”

3. Predominance of Legal Spirit:

Courts should always act as guardians against misuse of power because they are independent judiciary and so must safeguard the rights and set the seal on justice. The core principles of the British Constitution, particularly the liberties and rights of the people, are rooted in the traditions and customs of society and must be acknowledged and upheld by the courts in the administration of justice as circumstances evolve.

4. Accountability of Government:

The government must at all times be answerable for all the legal actions of the state making sure that there is no arbitrariness and transparency is paramount.

5. Protection of Fundamental Rights:

 Our freedom as citizens is secured through constitutional guarantees. Rule of Law makes sure that our rights against the State is executable.

6. Separation of Powers:

The modern expansion is the Tripartite System which legally prevents concentration of authority by dividing powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary. It strengthens checks and balances.

iii. Rule of Law vs Rule of Men

The key distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men lies in whether authority is derived from a fixed, impartial set of principles or from the individual whims of a ruler.

The Core Contrast

• The Rule of Law: Based on the maxim “no one is above the law”[6]. In this system, laws are clear, publicized, and consistently applied to everyone, including government leaders. Power is exercised through a framework of established rules rather than personal preference.
• The Rule of Men: Follows the maxim “I am the law“. It is characterized by arbitrary rule, where a single person (such as a dictator or absolute monarch) or an unaccountable group decides the rules based on their own “whims and fancies”

For example;

The European Union[7] enforces the rule of law by holding member states accountable to consistent legal standards, ensuring actions are governed by treaties rather than individual leaders. Unlike authoritarian decrees, EU governance demonstrates collective accountability, where member states are bound by treaties and judicial oversight, preventing leaders from bypassing legal norms.

Conversely, in 2024 the Taliban in Afghanistan[8] demonstrate the rule of man by implementing governance through supreme, non-negotiable decrees based on personal interpretation banning women and girls from public speaking and accessing education.

They serve as a stark contemporary illustration of the Rule of Men. Their system specifically violates the principle of “predictability,”[9] which is a cornerstone of the Rule of Law.

Lack of Publicized Framework: In a Rule of Law system, laws must be clear, publicized, and consistently applied so that citizens can foresee the legal consequences of their actions.

Arbitrary Decrees: The Taliban operates through supreme, non-negotiable decrees based on personal interpretations rather than a fixed constitutional framework.

Violation of Predictability: Because there is no transparent legal code, the “rules” can change at the whim of the leadership as seen in the sudden bans on women’s education and public speaking.

Absence of Judicial Oversight: Unlike systems bound by treaties or judicial review, these decrees lack an independent mechanism to check their validity, leaving citizens in a state of constant legal uncertainty.

Rule of Law and Its Importance

The Rule of Law is the principle that law governs society rather than arbitrary power. It ensures that no one, including the government, is above the law and that all actions must be legally justified. Rooted in A.V. Dicey’s formulation, it emphasizes law’s supremacy, equality, and judicial independence, but its true significance lies in how these principles prevent arbitrariness and sustain democratic trust.

Its importance is seen in the way it anchors constitutional democracy. By holding both citizens and the state accountable to the same legal framework, it guarantees equality, protects fundamental rights[10], and promotes transparency. Judicial independence and fairness build confidence in institutions, making governance predictable and just. Without the Rule of Law, rights would be insecure, power unchecked, and justice uncertain. Thus, it remains indispensable for a stable, free, and democratic society.

Important Case Principles:

Courts have consistently emphasized that it upholds the principle of:

Equality Before the Law in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014)1. S.C.C.60. The two-judge Supreme Court of India bench overturned the 2009 Delhi High Court’s decision decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts[11]. The ruling reinstated Section 377[12] of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the law did not violate fundamental rights while asserting that amending the law was a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.

In the foundational case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court of India addressed the scope of parliamentary authority to modify the Constitution. The Court determined that although Parliament holds expansive powers to amend the document under Article 368[13], such authority is not limitless. Specifically, amendments cannot be used to dismantle or “emasculate” the Basic Structure[14], the core features like secularism, democracy, and the separation of powers that define the Constitution’s fundamental identity.

The 1975 ruling in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain further strengthened the nation’s democratic framework by designating “Free and Fair Elections”[15] as an unalterable element of the Basic Structure. By invalidating the 39th Amendment, which attempted to remove the Prime Minister’s election from judicial oversight, the Court asserted that the Rule of Law must take precedence over political expediency. This decision ensured that any effort to shield elections from judicial review is a violation of democratic principles, thereby keeping the electoral process transparent and legally accountable.

Explicit Legal Authority

Judicial Independence in Union of India v. R. Gandhi and Ors. (2010)[16] the Supreme Court held that Judicial Independence is a part of the Basic Structure, ruling that any tribunal replacing a court must maintain an independent selection process and a composition free from executive dominance to uphold the separation of powers.

Judicial Review, Marbury v. Madison (1803, USA)[17], the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle of Judicial Review, affirming the judiciary’s power to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” thereby cementing the separation of powers and ensuring the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. 

International Law (even powerful nations are bound by it)

And, rule of Law cannot be set aside even in emergencies

Limits of Rule of Law

The Rule of Law is not absolute; it can be restricted by emergencies, judicial interpretation, social realities, and political power. Its spirit, however, remains essential, as courts and constitutions often reaffirm it as part of the basic structure that cannot be destroyed. India’s Emergency of 1975–1977 exposed this vulnerability when rights were suspended, showing how constitutional guarantees can be undermined.

The notorious case of ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207) revealed this fragility, with the Supreme Court upholding suspension of rights[18]. Widely condemned as a constitutional aberration, it was later corrected in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1[19], which reaffirmed privacy as a fundamental right and restored judicial vigilance. Dicey’s rigid insistence on uniformity has also been criticized[20] by scholars such as Jennings, who argued that he ignored administrative law and the realities of governance. These critiques highlight that the doctrine, while foundational, must evolve to remain relevant.

Globally, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index (2025) reported decline in 68 [21]countries, driven by reduced civic space, weakening oversight, and executive overreach. Modern challenges such as artificial intelligence, cybercrime, and climate change further expose gaps in legal frameworks, testing whether the Rule of Law can adapt to regulate new domains of power. Thus, while indispensable, its survival depends on continuous judicial reaffirmation and responsiveness to contemporary realities.

vii. Rule of Law in Indian Constitution and V.D. Mahajan’s Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (6th Edition, revised by V.B. Coutinho)

Governing all legislative and executive functions, the Constitution of India (1950) serves as the paramount legal instrument. It institutionalizes the Rule of Law, requiring that all state exercises of power be anchored in constitutional validity. Constitutional provisions empower courts to strike down laws that violate the rights of the citizens, guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws[22]. Protects the right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.

 Mahajan defines the Rule of Law not as mere “law and order,” but as a constitutional philosophy[23] that ensures fairness, accountability, and justice inextricably linked to Dicey’s three principles[24]:

1. Supremacy of Law – law is above all individuals and authorities.
2. Equality Before Law – everyone is subject to the same legal standards.
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit – courts safeguard rights and liberties.

While Dicey’s formulation is foundational, it has been criticized for rigidity and for ignoring administrative law[25]. Jennings argued that Dicey assumed equality that does not exist in practice, and India’s entrenched hierarchies often make access to justice uneven. This raises doubts about whether the doctrine can fully deliver its promise of equality before law.

Indian jurisprudence has nevertheless expanded the doctrine. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) recognized Rule of Law as part of the basic structure[26]. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 broadened Article 21 to include fairness and due process[27]. By contrast, ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207) during the Emergency revealed its fragility[28], as the Court upheld suspension of rights. This decision, later condemned as a constitutional aberration, was corrected in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, which reaffirmed privacy as a fundamental right and restored judicial vigilance.

Ultimately, Rule of Law in India is both a theoretical doctrine and a practical safeguard. Its vitality depends not only on constitutional text but on judicial independence and the courts’ willingness to defend rights against executive arbitrariness. The Indian experience shows that while indispensable, the doctrine must be continually reaffirmed and adapted to modern challenges.

viii. Legal Maxim

The rule of law is expressed in the legal maxim ” Lex est rex” meaning” The law is king. Law is supreme over everyone, including rulers and government authorities. It reflects the idea that no one is above the law, and all actions must be legally justified.

Conclusion

The Rule of Law (Lex est rex, Regula Juris, la principe de legalite’) remains the cornerstone of constitutional democracy, ensuring that law is supreme over arbitrary power and that no one, including the government, stands above it. Its endurance lies not in rigid adherence to Dicey’s nineteenth‑century principles but in its adaptability to modern challenges. The failures of ADM Jabalpur and the corrective stance in Puttaswamy illustrate that the doctrine survives only when courts and citizens actively defend it against arbitrariness. By guaranteeing equality before law, protecting fundamental rights, and empowering judicial independence, the Rule of Law creates a framework of fairness and accountability. Ultimately, it is both a constitutional philosophy and a practical safeguard, indispensable for justice and democratic governance worldwide.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• The Constitution of India (1950, as amended to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act 2023) <https://www.bareactsonline.com>
• Constitution of India, arts 14, 21, 32, 368
• The Constitution of Papua New Guinea (1975) s 11
• Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299; (1976) 2 SCR 347
• Union of India v R Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
• Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 60
• Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1
• Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
• ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
• Marbury v Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Secondary Sources

• AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, Macmillan 1959)
• Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England (1628)
• I. Jennings, The Law and the Constitution (5th edn, University of London Press 1959)
• D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (6th edn, revised by V.B. Coutinho, Eastern Book Company 2013)
• Naomi Choi, ‘Rule of Law’ Britannica (27 February 2026) <https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law>
• Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Rule of Law in Administrative and Constitutional Law’ Law Bhoomi (11 April 2025) <https://lawbhoomi.com>
• Vaibhav Vats, ‘What Has Happened to the Rule of Law in India?’ The Atlantic (21 May 2024) <https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/02/what-has-happened-rule-law-india/677337/>
• Vajiram Editor, ‘Rule of Law: History, Principles, Significance’ Vajiram & Ravi (4 January 2026) <https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/rule-of-law/>
• Lisa James and Jan van Zyl Smit, ‘The Rule of Law: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?’ UCL Constitution Unit (October 2025) <https://constitution-unit.com>
• Jeremy K Kessler, ‘Faculty Scholarship’ Columbia Law School (1 August 2025) <https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4684>
• European Commission, ‘Rule of Law Framework for Hungary and Poland’ (2024) <https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/rule-law_en>
• Human Rights Watch, ‘Afghanistan: Taliban Curtail Women’s Rights’ (2024) <https://www.hrw.org>
• World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2025 https://worldjusticeproject.org

[1] Naomi Choi, ‘Rule of Law’ Britannica (27 February 2026) <https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law>

[2] Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England (1628).

[3] The Constitution of Papua New Guinea (1975) s 11.

[4] European Commission, ‘Rule of Law in the EU’ <https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/rule-law_en>

 [7] European Commission, ‘Rule of Law in the EU’ <https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/rule-law_en>

[8] Human Rights Watch, ‘Afghanistan: Taliban Decrees on Women’s Rights’ (2024) <https://www.hrw.org>

[9] World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2024

[10] The Constitution of India, art 14

[11] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1

[12] Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 60

[13] The Constitution of India, art 368

[14] Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

[15] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299

[16] Union of India v R Gandhi and Ors (2010) 11 SCC 1

[17] Marbury v Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

[18] ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207

[19] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

[20] W.I. Jennings, The Law and the Constitution (5th edn, University of London Press 1959)

[21] World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2025 <https://worldjusticeproject.org>

[22] The Constitution of India (1950), arts 14 and 21

[23] V.D. Mahajan, Jurisprudence and Legal Theory (6th edn, revised by V.B. Coutinho, Eastern Book Company 2013)

[24] AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, Macmillan 1959)

[25] W.I. Jennings, The Law and the Constitution (5th edn, University of London Press 1959)

[26] Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461

[27] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

[28] ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207