RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

PANCH RISHI DEV SHARMA

While turning the pages of a recent legal periodical; I noticed a case, K.T.
Plantation (P) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, which deals with ‘Principal of rule
of law as a basic structure of the constitution of India, re-emphasized-
reiterated, rule of law as a concept (explicitly) finds no place in the
constitution, but has been characterized as a basic feature of the constitution,
which can not be abrogated or destroyed even by parliament and in fact binds
the parliament;1 Rule of law affirms Parliamentary control over the
constitution while at the same time denying it sovereignty over the
constitution’. These observations are reflective of Court’s approach towards
the basic concept of rule of law which is result of plethora of case that reflected
time and again in last 60 years. The importance of the concept of rule of law
directly deals with governance and democracy that is why there are numerous
cases which deals with that notion directly or indirectly.
Rule of law is the supreme manifestation of human civilization and
culture. It is an eternal value of constitutionalism and inherent attribute of
democracy and good governance. Theologian Rehind Niebhur noted years ago
‘The human capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but human
inclination to do injustice to others makes democracy- and the rule of law-
necessary’. Rule of law has become an integral part of global moral thought,
E.P. Thompson through not a lawyer but a famous thinker described ‘Rule of
law’ to be ‘an unqualified human good’ and ‘a cultural achievement of
universal significance’ faithfulness to Rule of law guarantees liberty, equality
of opportunity, fairness and a well–functioning society in the face of those

1
A bench of S.H. Kapadia J., Mukundakam Sharma J., K.S. Radhakrishnan J., Swatanter Kumar J.,
Anil R. Dave J., while deciding the validity of Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition &
Transfer) Act, 1996 (in short the "Acquisition Act"), the legal validity of Section 110 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short "Land Reforms Act"), the Notification No. RD 217 LRA 93 dated
8th March, 1994 issued by the State Government thereunder and the scope and content of Article 300A
of the Constitution of India, are the issues that have come up for consideration in these civil appeals.
Ibid. (2011) 9SCC 1-F
who, through ambition for power or wealth, would seek to impose their will on
the less powerful. It is actually faith and commitment to rule of law that
determines the growth and development of any democratic civilized society. As
and if the faith in rule of law diminishes the social, political and economic
fabric of society gets adversely affected. We are reminded of what Jawaharlal
Nehru while addressing International Congress of Jurists on Jan 5, 1959 said 2
“Rule of law seems to me synonymous with the maintenance of civilized
existence.’’ Rule of law denotes a way of life and commitment to certain
principles and values. Aptly describing the notion of Rule of law the former
Attorney General of India Soli Sorbajee says. “ It is the priceless inheritance of
our civilization” According to him “Rule of law symbolizes an enlightened
civilized society’s efforts and quest to combine that degree of liberty without
which law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty becomes
license.” Great constitutional thinkers including Sir Ivor Jennings, Kord
Radcliffe, Lord Denning, Lord Scarman, they all belongs to the school which
consider Rule of law as a ‘way of life’ and ‘index of civilizational growth’. If
we relate this concept of ‘Way of Life’ and ‘Index of Civilization’ with
democracy in simplest words is ‘of the people, for the people and by the
people; it is ‘rule of law which makes democracy of the people for the people
and by the people in the sense’.
Rule of law as a concept is substantive yet dynamic, as modern
philosophy yet ages old. One of the key assumption of Rule of law is that let no
man, however high or any government be trusted with power but tie him or it
down by the chains of law is of old origin: It is an ancient ideal and was
incorporated in ancient India in Upanishad saying “Law is the king of kings,
for more rigid and powerful than they; there are nothing higher than law; by its
prowess, as by that of highest monarch, the weak shall prevail over the strong.”
This Ideal of Rule of law was discussed by ancient Greek Philosopher such as
Plato and Aristotle around 350 BC. Similarly in the Ashok’s era ‘Dharma-
Chakra’ was also some how related with the concept of rule of law. Even in the

2
medieval era of Akbar’s notion of Deen-E-Elahi was also to protect certain
norms which are even binding on the emperor. All these historical notion can
be reflected is the words of Aristotle-“Law should govern and those in power
should be servants of law.”
The formal inception of the concept of rule of law goes back to
November 3, 1608 at West Minister Hall. At that wintry morning, the hot
discussion was going on between Sir Edward coke and James I. James I was
bent on establishing his absolute power chaining the divine right of the king.
Parliament and Royal Courts of Justice stood in his way. King James claimed
that –“since the judges were but his delegates, he could take any case he
choose, remove it from the jurisdiction of the courts and decide it in his royal
person.” To this Chief Justice Coke answered, “In the presence and with the
clear consent of all the judges that the king of his only on can not adjudicate
any case …but that it ought to be determined and adjudicated in same court of
justice according to law and customs of England.” To this the King replied
“That he thought that the law was founded upon the reasons and that he and
others had reasons as well as the judges.” That followed the stirring and
courage’s reply of Coke which sends a thrill of pride in every lawyer and even
judge even after so many years. He said “It was God who had endowed his
majesty with excellence science and great endowments of nature; but his
Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm in England and causes which
concerns the life or inheritance or goods or fortunes of his subjects are not to
be decided by natural reason but by artificial reason and judgment of law,
which law is an act which require long study and experience. That the Bracton
said that the king should not be under man but should be under God and law.”
These words lead to the great evolution of Rule of law in UK. To an extent
these courageous words leads to Glorious Revolution and Act to settlement
(1701) which secured Rule of law in and out in England and inspired the world.
Prof. Albert Venn Dicey later developed on this concept in the course of
his lectures at Oxford University. Dicey was an individualist, he wrote about
the concept of Rule of law in 1885 through his book ‘The Law and the
constitution’. This doctrine promugulmates the notions of rule of law which has
certain limits subject to political –social and economic era of that time. Dicey’s
notion of rule of law yet forms the basic ingredients of rule of law. He
attributed three meanings to the said doctrine.
The First principle (Supremacy of Law) recognizes a cardinal rule of
democracy that every government be subject to law and not law subject to
government. It rightly opposed arbitrary and unfettered discretion to the
government authorities which has tendency to interfere with rights of citizen.
Dicey’s First Principle of the absence of discretionary power in the hands of
government officials.
The Second Principle (Equality Before Law) is equally important in a
system wedded to democratic polity. It is based on the well known “However
high you may be, Law is above you” and all are equal before law” Dicey states
that there must be equality before law and equal subjection of all classes to the
ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts. He added that in
England all person were subject to one and the same law, and there were no
extraordinary tribunals or special courts for officers of the Government and
other authorities. That is why he criticized French legal system of Droit
Administerif in which there were separate administrative tribunal for deciding
cases between the official of the state and the citizens. According to him
exemption of civil servants from the jurisdiction of ordinary court of law and
providing them with special tribunals was negation of equality
The Third principle (Predominance of Legal Spirit) put emphasis on the
role of the judiciary in enforcing individual rights and personal freedoms
respective of their inclusion in the constitution. Dicey feared that mere
declaration of such rights in any statue would be futile if they could not be
enforced. He further added that constitution is not the source but the
consequence of the right of the individual thus dicey emphasized that the right
would be secure more adequately if they were enforceable in the court of law
than mere declaration of those rights in the document, as in later case they can
be ignored, curtailed or trampled upon.
 Dicey’s thesis ‘Rule of law’ proved to be an effective instrument in
conferring the administrative authorities within their limits. It served as a king
of touchstone to judge and test administrative actions. Because of its effects
Wade observed that “British constitution is founded on the doctrine” Yardley
also says that in broad principle the rule of law is accepted by all as a necessary
constitutional safeguard. Undoubtly Dicey’s thesis established three pillars (In
form of three principles) on which roof of democracy stands and he
propounded that these pillars (principles) are inter-dependant and inter-related.
But, his doctrine also had some limitations. Even in his days the doctrine was
not totally accepted in England even. Wade rightly says that if he had chosen to
examine the scope of administrative law in England, he would have to admit
that even in 1885 there existed a long list of institute which permitted the
exercise of discretionary powers which could not be called in question by
courts. The shortcoming of Dicey’s doctrine was that he not only excluded the
arbitrary powers but also insisted that administrative authorities should not be
given wide discretionary powers as according to him. ‘Wherever there is
discretion, there is room for arbitrariness. Thus Dicey failed to distinguish
arbitrary power from discretionary powers. Though arbitrary power is
inconsistent with the concept of rule of law, discretionary power is not, if it is
properly exercised. The modern welfare state cannot work properly without
discretionary powers. As Mathew J. Stated “if it is contrary to the rule of law
that discretionary authorities should be given to the government departments or
public officers than there is no rule of law.” Prof. R.A. Cosgrave gives a unique
insight into various facets of Dicey’s personality. The portrait of Dicey which
Prof. Cosgrove paints hatters all images which students and scholars have built
of this great philosopher. He discovers in Dicey’s a somber, uncompromising
and artless figure, lacking in confidence as scholars and frustrated in his
political ambitions. This iconoclassic description of Dicey’s personality goes a
long way in explaining his attitude towards Droit Administratif of France and
Rule of law doctrine. By administrative law Dicey meant only a single aspect
of the French Droit Administrist namely administrative jurisdiction to the
exclusion of ordinary and criminal process. Dicey admitted, after 1901 that he
conceived his idea of the nature and existence of administrative law from de
Jocqueville who himself later admitted his ignorance about the actual working
of the Driot Adminstrif in his own days Dicey’s was historically correct up to
the time of 1873 when arrest (Executive law), Blanko finally settled the
jurisdiction of the Counsel d’Etat in all questions involving administrative
matter. Among other things, the Balco decision firmly laid down that question
of administrative liability would be with in the jurisdiction of administrative
courts and that this liability was subject to special rules different from those of
driot rules. However, Dicey misconceived the administrative law because he
thought that the French system is administrative law, when administration law
is more than that. Dicey’s was also not right when he said that there is no
administration law in England because even during Dicey’s time the crown and
its servants enjoyed special privileges on that the basis of the doctrine that ‘the
King can do no wrong’ there was also existence of special courts in England
i.e. ecclesiastical and admiralty courts. Because of some decisions like Local
Government Board Vs Arlidge and Board of Education Vs Rice where in
administrative agency was authorised to decide even the question of law. Dicey
himself recognized his mistake and observed that there exists in England a vast
body of administrative law could be as effectively enforced by the courts as by
‘ a body of men who combine official experience with legal knowledge’
provided that they are entirely independent of the government.
The modern concept of the Rule of law of law is fairly wide and
therefore sets up an ideal for any government to achieve. The concept was
developed by the International Commission of Jurist, known as Delhi
Declaration 1959, which was later confirmed at Lagos in 1961. According to
this formulation, the Rule of law implies that the functions in a free society
should be so exercised as to create conditions in which the dignity of man as an
individual is upheld. The diginity requires not only the recognition of certain
civil and political rights but also social, economical educational cultural and
developmental rights. In Short for the proper establishment of Rule of law,
Human Rights mechanism should be ensured. Particularly in the content of
third world countries like India, Human Rights mechanism is utmost necessary.
The Apex Court in Veena Sethi Vs State of Bihar excluded the reach of the
Rule of law to the poor and downtrodden the ignorant and the illiterate, who
constitute the bulk of humanity in India, when it ruled that the Rule of law does
not exist merely for those who have means to fight for their rights and very
often do so for the perpetuation of the status quo, which protects and presence
their dominance and permits to exploit large section of community.
Moderating the Dicey’s meaning in the present day context Prof. Wade
includes, under rule of law- effective control of and proper publicity for
delegated legislation particularly when it imposes penalties that should as far as
practicable be defined; every man should be responsible to, the ordinary laws
whether he be a private citizen are public official, the private mans right should
be determined by impartial and independent tribunals and fundamental private
rights are safeguards by ordinary laws of England.” Prof. A.L. Goodhart further
added that a public officers are governed by law, which limits their powers. It
means government under law – the supremacy of law is different from
government by law- the mere supremacy of law in ordinary society generally
which would apply to totalitarian state . Re emphasizing this inter connection
between Rule of law, Democracy and constitutionalism Jus. Venkatachaliah
quoted following passage from Canadian Supreme Court.
“ The consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our
understanding of a tree and democratic society. Yet democracy in any real
sense of the word can not exist without Rule of law. It is that the law that
creates the framework within which the ‘Sovereign Will’ is to be ascertained
and implemented. They must allow for the participation of, and accountability
to, the people through public Intuitions created under the consultation. Equally
however a system of government can not survive through adherence to the law
alone”
‘Rule of law is a dominant legitimate slogan in the world today. It is
perhaps the only universally shared good in modern world in which the most
evident lesson is how divided we are culturally economically and politically.
Perhaps it is easier to set out that what the Rule of law is not. In some
countries Rule of law is those who rule are the law! Leaders in some countries
want rule by law and not rule of law. The difference is that under rule of law is
preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power, under Rule By
Law the Law can serve as a mere tool for government that suppress in a
legalistic fashion.
John Finnish says that by ‘rule of law’ is meant a system in which (i) its
rules are prospective,(ii) possible to comply with, (iii) promulgated, (iv) Clear,
(v) Coherent with each other, (vi) sufficiently stable, (vii) the making of
decrees and orders in guided by rules that are themselves promulgated, clear
stable and relatively general (Viii) those who administer rules are accountable
for their over compliance with rules relating to their activities and who perform
these consistently and in accordance with law.

Elucidating the importance and essentiality of the tripartite relationship and

sharing the vision of founding fathers and mothers of the constituition Indian
Supreme Court in 1950’s in a famous case called Duplessis’s case 25 said.
“ First that rule of law provides that the law is supreme
Court over the acts of both government and private persons.
There is, in short one law for all. Second we explained that The
Rule of Law requires that creation and maintenance of an
actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the
more general principle of normative order. A third aspect of
the rule of law is that the exercise of public power must find its
ultimate source in a legal note. The constitutionalism principle
bears considerable similarity to the rule of law although they
are not identical. Simply put, the constitutionalism principle
 requires that all government action should comply with the
constitution. The rule of law principle requires that all
government action must comply with law, including the
constitution.”
Thus it hardly needs extra efforts to appreciate that principle of
constitutionalism and Rule of Law lie at the root of Democracy and there are
interconnected, interdependent and they inspire and inform are one and
another. In short absent rule of law the nation of Democracy and of
Constitutionalism become shere elusion.
Rejecting the minimist approach many eminent scholar like Dicey,
Michael Oakeshott and including Hayek, himself advocated that rule of law
stands for law rules, fraternity, accountability and non arbitrariness and is
certain, regular and predicatable using the word in the sense ‘ Jus’ and ‘Lex’
both. The concept of rule of law does not merely mean ‘formal legality’ which
assures ‘regularity’ and consistency’ in the achievement and enforcement of
democratic order, but justice based on recognition and full acceptance of the
supreme value of human personality and guaranteed by institutions providing a
framework for its fullest expression- in fact it is its time dynamic aspect loosely
called by means as ‘substantive’ aspect that makes Rule of Law so important
and an ideal. Quoting Jus. Krishna Iyer.
“Rule of law, as at once a dyke against anarchy and tyranny and a
steering wheel to direct the course of the ship of state towards that socialist
shore reaching which redeems our nations tryst with destiny.”
Similarly the first Prime Minister of India Jawahar Lal Nehru
advocating the relevance of functional concept and dynamic nature of Rule of
Law told International Commission of Jurists.
“ The rule of law must run close to rule of life, which is abolition of
poverty, assurance of social justice and national development liberating human
potential imprisoned by the feudal structure of the society.”
Thus contrary to the minimist or formalist approach and enlarging
Dicey’s concept the Indian approach to the concept of rule of law goes beyond
for its deep concern with social, economical and cultural conditions necessary
for the fulfillment of legitimate aspirations of the people. The rule of law is not
only about ‘formalism’ but is at the same time to put in the words of Justice
Iyer ‘an Initiator, Engineer and Indicator of Social Change.
India’s founding fathers and mothers were guided by the substantive and
dynamic approach while incorporating ideal of Rule of Law in constitutional
scheme. The preamble of the constitution ensures “Justice-Social, Economic
and Political” that ensures “equality of status and Opportunity” and “Dignity of
Individual”. Part III (Fundamental Rights) lays down fundamental rights
guaranteed to every individual and justicable thorough Art. 32 and Art. 226
respectively through Supreme Court and High Court as a fundamental right
itself. Laws including ordinances, by laws, rules, regulations notification
customs or usages having a force of law must Confirm with the constitutional
requirements of the constitutional provision under art 13, if they do not
confirm they will be declared void.Art14 enables ‘equality before law and
equal protection of law’s and art 15,16,23 gives real meaning to equality by
protective discrimination. The law of preventive detention which is abnomious
to the rule of law must however confirm to the procedure established by laws
under Art.21 of the constitution. Directive Principle of the State Policy under
part IV makes certain Social, Educational, Cultural and Development Rights of
an individual and of a community, as fundamental in governance of the state
through constitutional mandate.
Believing in the equality assumption of Rule of law the founders
did not believe in formal notion of equality. They were conciuos that formal
notion of equality as articulated in Art. 14 would lead to perpetuating existing
inequalities in name of caste , race, creed enacted a legal regime through
provisions contained under Art 16,17 and 23 giving real meaning of equality.
In the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs Jus Tendolkar the concept of equality
was widened. The Supreme Court observed that there should not be
discrimination either on the basis of Substantive Laws or on procedural laws.
Art14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification, that
is based on intelligible differentia that has a nexus with the objective of that
Act. Similar cases like Mr. Balaji Vs State of Maysore, Nargish Mirja Vs Air
India has widened the notion of equality and attached the real substantive
meaning to it. Through Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India, Ajay Hasia Vs
Khalid Mujib and E.P. Royappa Vs State of Tamilnadu, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has developed “a new doctrine of equality which sates that
wherever there is arbitrariness is breach to equality , Art 14. The new formation
of the concept of rule of law opened the gates of litigation under Art 14. and
has superwidened the scope of equality clause.
To provide more meanings to Right To Life and Personal Liberty under
Art 21, Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India over-ruled A.K. Gopalan
Vs……………and added ‘substantive due process’ with in meaning of
procedural due process This development is referred as super- expansion of
right to life and personal liberty provided whole new Jurisprudence of Right
Based Litigation in India.
In the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs Shiv Kant Shukla popularly known
‘Habeas Corpus case’, the Supreme Court was confronted with the question
whether the third limb of Dicey’s doctrine was an integral part of Indian
conception of Rule of Law. Through this case, an attempt was made to
challenge the detention orders during the emergency on the ‘obligation to act in
accordance with rule of law as the central feature of constitutional system and
the basic feature of the constitution.’ Though the contention did not succeed
and some justices even went on to suggest that ‘during an emergency, the
emergency provision themselves constitute Rule of Law. Even in spite of the
unfortunate judgment to the effect that shuts the doors of the court during an
emergency are completely shut for detunes, it is gratifying to note that the
concept of rule of law can be used as a legal concept. In the minority opinion
Justice Khanna observed that:
“Rule of Law is the antithesis to arbitrariness. Even in the absence of
Art 21 in the constitution, the state has no power to deprive a person, of his life
or personal liberty without the authority of law. This is the essential postulates
and the basic assumption of rule of law and not of men in all civilized nations.
A state of negation of rule of law would not case to be such a state because of
the fact such a state of negation of rule of law has been brought about by statue.
Absence of rule of law would nevertheless be absence of rule of law even
though it is brought about by a Law to repeat all laws.”
In the opinion of some of the judges constituting the majority in
Keshvananda Bharti Vs state of Kerala, rule of law was considered as an
“aspect of the doctrine of basic structure of the constitution, which even the
plenary power of Parliament cannot reach to amend.” In Indira Nehru Gandhi
Vs Raj Narain in which the Supreme Court invalidated clause (4) of Article
329-A, inserted in the Constitution by Constitution (Thirty-Nine Amendment)
Act 1975 to immunize the election dispute to the office of the Prime Minister
from any kind of judicial review, Khanna and Chandrahud JJ. Held that Art
329-A violated the concept of basic structure. Other judges though did not go
to this extent but certainly held that since validation of the Prime Minister
Election was not by applying any law, therefore it offends Rule of Law.
According to Mathew J. clause (4) of Article 329-A offended the Rule of law
which postulates the pervasiveness of the spirit of law throughout the whole
range of government in the sense of excluding arbitrary official action in any
sphere. “ A study of Keshvanda, Indira Gandhi and other Habeas corpus cases”
writes Prof. Baxi “ Provides a distribution of Indian Judicial thought on the
conception of the rule of law which has evolved well over a quarter century.
References to western theories and thinkers from Dicey’s onwards abound in
these opinions, but these occur by way of rhetorical flourishes, masking the
typically Indian approaches.”
The conception and approach towards Rule of law is very dynamic thus
‘Rule Law’ which we have today will not remain tomorrow the same. These
changes are identifiable in our Socio-Legal climate. I also do not think that the
scope of the existing principles can be adequately understood without examine
its implications, which may be conveniently broken down in to a series of sub-
rules. I have identified thirteen such rules which are forming and will be
forming ‘Rule of Law’ of tomorrow.
First: the law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear
and predictable because if every one is bound by law, they must be able
without any difficulty to find out what it is , even if that means taking advice
(as it usually will), and the answer when given should be sufficiently clear that
a course of action can be based on it.
Second: the law should be refleivtive of majority peoples wish. A law
which is arbitrary or result of abuse of power or dicreetion that is beyond and
above of any chek and balance mechanism is not ‘Rule of Law’.
Third: Democracy that is inner and outer as well is the cure of ‘Rule of
Law’. Democracy should not only be in its functional aspect but it should be
coupled with the value demonstration. Democracy should be there in both
formats: As a system that means decoratively elected government and
democracy as a value as well that includes Demonstration enter and more
importantly inner.
Fourth: That question of legal rights and liabilities should be resolved by
application of the law and not the exercise of discretion which is unguided and
unprotected a discretion should be narrowly defined and exercise should be
capable of reasonable justifications.
Fifth: the impact of law should reach to the masses where the light of
modernization has not reached law should be different according to the need of
circumstances and persons who need special treatment. Moreover legal rights,
liabilities should reach to the masses. Community capability building the
foremost important aspect in achieving this goal.
Sixth: the nation of equality should be more dynamic. The equality
forbids class0legisltation but does not forbid reasonable differentia and holds
nerves with in the object of that. Equality should equity based equality to
provide proper meaning to the inspection of Rule of Law.
Seventy: Law must afford adequate protection to human rights.
Professor Raz has written. “a non democratic legal system, based on the denial
of human rights, on extensive poverty, an racial segeration, sexual inequalities
and racial persecution may, in principle, confirm to the requirement of the rule
of law better than any of the legal system of the more enlightened wetern
Democracies it will be an immeasurably worse legal system, but it will excel in
one respect its conformity to rule of law…….. The law may institute slavery
without violating rule of law.”
Eight: Socio-economic –cultural-development rights protection is sine-
qua-non for rule of law mechanism. These rights are in general mentioned
under Directive principle of state policy which are fundamental in governance
but not enforceable. This judiciary should play an artist role by interpretation
then under the head of enforceable rights guaranteed by the constitution so that
these rights become legal entitlement and gain equal importance as
fundamental rights.
Nineth: law should apply equality to all, save to the extent those
objective differences firstly differentiation. Some special provisions can
properly be made for some category of people such as children, prisoners,
women and mentally ill, based on particular characteristics of such categories.
Tenth: that means should be provided for resolving without prohibitive
costs or in ordinate delay, bona-fide civil disputes which the parties themselves
are unable to resolve. It would seems to be an obvious corollary of the principle
that everyone is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law that people
should be able, in the last resort, to go to court to have their rights and
liabilities determined. This is not a rule directed against arbitration and more
informal means of dispute resolution, all of witch , properly restored to and
fairly conducted have a supremely important contribution to make to the of
law.
Eleventh: Ministers and Public officials at all level must exercise the
powers conferred to them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which
the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits and emerging
notions of Judicial Review. It is indeed fundamentals for although the citizen of
democracy empower their representative institutions to make laws which, duly
made, bind all of whom they apply, and if falls to the executive, the
government of the day, to carry those lanes into effect, nothing ordinarily
authorities executive to act otherwise than in strict accordance with those laws.
Twelfth: the adjudicative procedures provided by state should be fair the
rule of law would seems to require no less. The general arguments in favour of
open hearing are familiar, summed up on this side of the Alantic by the dictim
that just must manifestly and undoubted be seen to be done. Application of this
rule to ordinary civil process is largely unproblematic once it is remembered
that not all decisions are purely judicial. As the Chief justice of Australia has
pointed out “ the Rule of Law does not mean rule by lawyers.”
Thirteenth: the existing principle of Rule of law requires compliances by
the state with its obligations in international law, the law which whether
deriving from treaty or international custom and practices governing the
conduct of nations should form its basis within the domestic laws as the global
law and order is a sine qua non for present day legal system.