The expression “Rule of Law”, broadly speaking, means supremacy of law and absence of arbitrariness. Supreme Court of India, in Jaisinghbhai vs Union of India , emphasised that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential ingredient of law. It definitely indicates that the direction conferred upon the ‘executive’ must be confined within its clearly defined limts. Every decision should be based on the known principles and general norms, predictable to the citizens.
The doctrine is the very foundation of democracy.
English Legal History reveals that this doctrine developed in England in 13th century, especially in the form of ‘magna carta’, throwing sufficient light on the concept of human liberty, which is considered emergence of this doctrine of rule of law. In those of old days, people of France were used to be punished arbitrarily and whimgically, whereas in England every punishment was inflicted according to the supremacy of rule of law. In those days, in italy, germany and France, there were special courts and special laws for officers, whereas ordinary people were tried according to ordinary law, ordinary procedure and ordinary courts.
Prof. dicey make the doctrice more clear. Accoding to him, whether he is Prime Minister or Police Constable, every one is amenable to the jurisdiction of one and same ordinary court. Further, none can be made to suffer in person, property, or reputation, except it is proved in ordinary courts of laws and that too by ordinary legal procedure and manner, considering that all person are equal before law. Reasonable opportunity of hearing must be given to the affected areas.
In India, first of all, the principles of rule of law were made applicable by giving the place in the Government of India Act 1919 and 1935, which the Indian courts and Indian citizens were bound to follow, in order to eradicate arbitrary action and decisions of the authorities.
After independence of India, the framers of Indian Constitution also attached due weight ot this doctrine of rule of law, which is clear from the perusual of Art. 14,15,16,18,19,21,31 and 32 of constitution. The curx of the provisions of the aforesaid Articles is that “the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law and the equal protection of law within the territory of India”. There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of religion, race , caste , sex or place of birth and there will be equality of opportunities in the matters of employment and there will be abolition of titles also.
Articles 19 enshrines that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expressions
right to assemble peacefully and without arms
to form associations and unions
to move freely in India
to reside and settle in any part of Indian Territory, and
to acquire, hold and dispose of property omitted by the 44th amendment act of 1978
to practise any profession, occupation, trade or business and further no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
Under art 32. and art 226, the supreme court and high court respectively have been empowerded to issue directions, order or writs, includin writs in the nature of habeous corpus , mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.
But is must be kept in mind that these freedoms are not absolute, because they are subject to “reasonable restrictions”. Restrictions can be imposed keeping in view the security of State, national interest, friendly relations with the foreign States, decency, morality, public law and order, Contempt of Courts, as also integrity and sovereignty of India.
In Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 397 Hon’ble Supreme Court adhered to wide adhered to personal liberty and right to travel abroad was included in personal liberty’.
