RULE OF LAW

“CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND RULE OF LAW”

BY – MANDOBI CHOWDHURY AND SHAYAN GHOSH

KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW, INDIA

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1956317

 “The Constitutional Principles are the pillar of the separation of powers in what is today a
democracy under the rule of law”

------- SEDLEY LJ

RULE OF LAW: ITS AMBIT AND DIMENSION

The supremacy of the law of the land was not a novel doctrine in nineteenth century where A.V.
Dicey invented the „Rule of Law‟ which means the recognition of certain fundamental obligations
which are binding upon states in their own dealings with one another. He scrutinized the principle of
the Rule of law, which he observed throughout all civilized societies and no State can repudiate this
perception1. The connotation made by Dicey is that individuals ought not to be subjected to the
power of officials wielding wide discretionary powers. Fundamental to Rule of Law is the notion
that all powers need to be authorized2. Dicey‟s concept was that no person should be condemned
unheard, there should no punishment without a trial. The ambit of the Rule of Law diversified in
Gopalan’s case3 where the judiciary as per the constituent assembly dropped the use of the
expression „due process of law‟ and instead adopted the expression „procedures established by law‟
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus the concept of „due process of law‟ could not be
imported, an ipso facto violation to the Rule of Law.4 The Rule of Law is a signal virtue of civilized
societies.5 The Rule of Law is a possible condition to be achieved under human governments by
which the humans of the community are therefore greatly enriched by it.6He discussed certain
elements of the Rule of Law where there is absence of arbitrary power on the part of the

1
DICEY A.V, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNIVERSAL

LAW PUBLISHING CO. DELHI, FIFTH EDITION 2008, p. xcviii.

2
JOWELL JEFFREY AND OLIVER DAWN, THE CHANGING CONSTITUTION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

NEW YORK, SEVENTH EDITION, 2011 p. 13.

3
1950 SCR 88.
4
BASU D.D DR. COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, WADWA AND CO. PUBLISHERS, SECOND

EDITION, 2008, p.220.

5
RHETORIC MACCORMICK NEIL, RULE OF LAW, A THEORY OF LEGAL REASONING, LAW, STATE

AND PRACTICAL REASONOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, FIRST PUBLICATION 2005, p 12.

6
Ibid. p 16.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1956317

Government, equality of all persons in the eyes of law and rules of Constitutional Law are the results
of the ordinary law of land.7

THE FACETS OF THE RULE OF LAW

The Rule of Law is a signal virtue of the civilized societies which is a possible condition to be
achieved under human governments by which the humans of the community are therefore greatly
enriched by it.8 The rules of law, according to Hart are valid because some competent institution
enacted them. Some are created by a legislature and some were created by judges who formulate
them to decide particular cases by establishing them as precedents for the future.9

Professor Dworkin in “Political Judges and the Rule of Law” considers that “a government of wise
and just officers will protect rights... on its own initiative, without procedure whereby citizens can
dispute, as individuals what these rights are."10 The general idea of the Rule of Law was defended by
Prof. Dworkin in Law‟s Empire by “Law insists that force not be used or withheld, no matter how
beneficial... but collective force is to be justified.”11 The architects of basic structure sought to
deduce it from the wider principle of „Rule of Law‟, an expression unknown to the text of the Indian
Constitution. The framers of Indian Constitution was framed by taking into account of the

7
BASU D.D DR. COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, WADWA AND CO. PUBLISHERS, SECOND

EDITION, 2008.
8
RHETORIC MACCORMICK NEIL, RULE OF LAW, A THEORY OF LEGAL REASONING, LAW, STATE

AND PRACTICAL REASONOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, FIRST PUBLICATION 2005. p. 16.

9
KAVANAGH AILEEN AND OBERDICK JOHN, ARGUING ABOUT LAW, ROUTLEDGE (TAYLOR AND

FRANCIS GROUP) LONDON AND NEW YORK, FIRST EDITION 2009.

10
TRIPATHI P.K PROFESSOR, COMPRATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOUR BY

SINGH P. MAHENDRA, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, SECOND EDITION.

11
LAW‟S EMPIRE, RONALD DWORKIN, SECOND INDIAN REPRINT 2008, UNIVERSAL LAW

PUBLISHING CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI.

experience of procedure laid down by the “law of the land” dating from Magna Carta, 12 which had
been adopted in the various Government of India Acts.

Universal Declarations of Human Rights states in its preamble, it is widely thought to be “essential,
if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and
oppressions, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.13

CONSTITUIONAL GOVERNANCE: THE SIEGES WITHIN

The new vista of Judicial activism and Rule of Law, the Supreme Court of India had adjudicated in
the case of Ram Jethmalani v. India14 where the Union and State Government were directed to
facilitate the conduct of the investigations, in their fullest measure, by the Special Investigation
Team, which shall constitute and function by extending all the necessary financial, material, legal,
diplomatic and intelligence resources. These investigations or portions of such investigations may
occur inside the country or abroad. The petitioner‟s appeal contends that a special investigation team
is to be formed to monitor the investigation and there should triumph of the Rule of Law, which will
help to decide matter on merits and provide justice devoid of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.
The contentions were raised in order to save India from global crusade against black money and
corruption where several administrative departments of the Government are involved. The
petitioner‟s plea not only to stop illicit money parked outside India but also to stop the transfer of
illicit money outside India. This behavior of the Government is going against the Rule of Law and
upsets the functioning governance. They are acting negligently with the citizen‟s money. Therefore
the prayer of the applicants was that, the Court should be abiding to the Rule of Law; no one is
above law and even law bends before justice so the competent authority must decide the case on
equity and fairness.
The Apex Court of India affirmed a new dimension in the C.V.C. case. 15 The petition addresses to a
substantial question of Law which is of public importance as to the legality of an appointment of the
Commissioner in the Central Vigilance department of India. The appeal arises on the aspect of

12
BASU D.D DR. COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, WADWA AND CO. PUBLISHERS, SECOND

EDITION, 2008. p. 222.

13
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). PREAMBLE. PARA 3.
14
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2011 (10) SCALE 753.
15
Centre for PIL and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. W.P. (C) NO. 348 AND 355 of 2010.
Central Vigilance Commissioners Act 2003 which states that the Indian government is not
accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions which is obstruction the Rule of Law on its
face. The plea made by the petitioners was to adjudge the case on its merits and on the basis of the
question of Law. Court is the authoritative body to safeguard the supremacy of Law, so it has the
right to know and judicially scrutinize every case. The appointed Commissioner was an accused of a
pending Corruption case which is itself covering a big question on his appointment. The menace of
corruption cannot be permitted to be hidden under the carpet of legal technicalities. Therefore, such
law is hindering the Rule of Law to flourish and hence arbitrary, unreasonable and should be
invalidated and any authoritative administrative body must be liable before the Court who is the
agent of justice and fairness. Vigilance is an integral part of all government institutions. Anti-
corruption measures are the responsibility of Central government in India.

ADJUDICATION IS A KISS OF LIFE FOR INDIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE

RULE OF LAW

CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW

A written constitution separating the three great powers seems to be a good workable instrument
under which the Rule of Law can flourish.16 Sir Ivor Jennings, the famous constitutional historian
characterizes Rule of Law as “an unruly horse”. A law court acquires the decisive function of an
authoritative interpreter of the meaning of the rule of law, within the framework of the constitution.17
Judicial interference has got very little importance, because in Indian Constitution Rule of Law is a
18
dominant factor and it is judiciary who has given a special power to look after it. The Constitution

16
SORABJEE J. SOLI , LAW AND JUSTICE, AN ANTHOLOGY, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO. PVT

LTD. NEW DELHI 2003.p. 370.

17
FRIEDMANN. W, LAW IN A CHANGING SOCIETY UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING PVT LTD, DELHI,

SECOND EDITION. p. 504.

18
SHARMA O.P, THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST, INDIAN BAR REVIEW VOL- XXV(1) 1998. p. 116.
as “higher law” which permeates the entire body of constitutional decisions in the U.S.A., was
formally evolved by Chief Justice Marshall in the Marbury case19 in the words –

“.....As the authority from which they proceed is supreme.... they are designed to be permanent.”

The higher law was also as was stated by Sutherland, J. was, “... The supremacy of the Constitution
as law is thus declared without qualification. That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute
enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance of the
Constitution... This Constitution ...shall be the supreme law of the land...”20

RULE OF LAW REVISITED: CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND THE COURT

Stephen Sedley retorts, “ministers are no more elected than judges are”; an important role for the
courts is thus to safeguard the rule of law in the face of the otherwise unaccountable abuses of
ministerial power.21 The position of the judges‟ values on the rest of us amounts to rule by an
unelected elite in defiance of the most basic principles in a democracy.22

Judicial activism has got a huge relevance in the Constitution of India, where Rule of Law is a
dominant factor and it is judiciary who has given a special power to observe through several cases.23

In the case of Indira Gandhi24, it was contended that if Article 14 itself was not a basic feature “the
principle of equality”, which was the core of Article 14 was a basic feature. This argument was
appealed to Chandrachud, J.; it was however, rightly rejected by Matthew and Beg., JJ. On the
ground that all could be said about “equality” was embodied in Articles 14-16 and that there was no

19
Marbury v. Madison (1801) 1 Cr 137 (175).
20
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1935) 29 US 238 (p. 296-97).
21
S.SEDLEY, “THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION”, LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS (MAY

1977), p. 11.
22
III ROOSEVELT KERMIT , THE MYTH OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, MAKING SENSE OF SUPREME

COURT DECISIONS, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING CO PVT LTD, FIRST INDIA REPRINT,2008. p. 13.

23
SHARMA O.P, THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST, INDIAN BAR REVIEW VOL- XXV(1) 1998.

24
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Anr. AIR 1975 SC 2299. para 332.
principle of equality outside these specific provisions. In fact Article 14 itself by assuming equality
before the law and equal protection of the laws, had provided both the shell and the kernel, the skin
and the core of the principle of equality and any attempt to import “equality” as a basic structure
would involve a judicial jugglery to bring in Article 14 “through the back door of the basic
structure”, in the face of the unanimous rejection of the fundamental rights as a whole in
Keshavananda25, as a constitutional limitation upon the constituent power. Some Judges have
supposed this “core” of Article 14 to be “not formal equality” but the absence of “inequalities arising
on account of vast social and economic differentials”26, or what is called “the principle of
egalitarianism”, others have put it as absence of arbitrariness 27 and again, it has been put as another
way of affirming the “rule of law”, that is “be you ever so high, the law is above you”. 28 Related to
the issues, Subba Rao, C.J., considered that Article 14 has been described "as a necessary corollary
to the high concept of the rule of law."29

PRESERVING THE RULE OF LAW

The Supreme Court of India in Gopalan‟s case through Das, J. held that “... the written Constitution
of the United States is supreme above all the three limbs of the Government and, therefore, the law
made by the Congress, in older to be valid, must be in conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution. If it is not, the Supreme Court will intervene and declare that law to be unconstitutional
and void... In India... our Constitution has, by some of the articles, had certain specified limitations
on the legislative power, and the Court must, on a complaint being made to it, scrutinize and
ascertain whether such limitation has been transgressed and if there has been any transgression the
Court will courageously declare the law unconstitutional, for the Court is bound by its oath to uphold
the Constitution.30

25
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
26
BASU D.D DR. COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, WADWA AND CO. PUBLISHERS, SECOND

EDITION, 2008. p. 2.

27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Satwant Singh v. Passport Officer [1967] 3 SCR 525.
30
A.K.Gopalan v. The State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27.
It is submitted that Rule of Law runs like a golden thread in Indian Constitution Basheshar Nath‟s
case,31 observing the principle which was an essential element of the guarantee of equality. The Rule
of Law is concerned with the Liberty of an individual and is based on the recognition of his essential
human rights including the right to life.32 Das, C.J., has combined the English doctrine of Rule of
Law and the American Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment. 33

Shastri, C.J., made the observation regarding the rule of law in a case 34 where it was held that
“Legislation such as we have now before us is calculated to drain the vitality from the rule of law
which our Constitution so unmistakably proclaims and it is hoped that the democratic process in this
country will not function along these lines.”

Illustrations from the Constitution of Eire also states in Article 40 (4) (a) that „No citizen shall be
deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.” In the case of Quinn v. Ryan 35, the
Irish High Court stated that “... it had been authorized by law enacted by Parliament which was
binding upon Eire, as an existing law...”

REFRAMING THE WEB: THE KESHAVANANDA BHARATI CASE

Nani Palkhivala in Keshavananda contended that the “...Constitution cannot increase its own
constituent power nor can it arrogate to itself the power to alter or destroy the Constitution‟s
essential features...” Along with it “... Parliament could not abridge or destroy basic human rights
and fundamental freedoms which were reserved by the people for themselves when they gave to
themselves the Constitution.” The Supreme Court protected the life and spirit of the Rule of Law in

31
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax- Delhi & Rajasthan AIR 1959 SC 149.
32
COSTA PIETRO AND ZOLO DANILO, THE RULE OF LAW HISTORY, THEORY AND CRITICISMS,

SPINGER, LAW AND PHILOSOPHY LIBRARY, VOLUME NO. EIGHTY.

33
MENON N.R MADHAVA, RULE OF LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI,

FIRST PUBLICATION, 2008.p. 24.

34
Ramprasad v. State of Bihar 1953 SCR 1129 (p. 1134).
35
318 N.E.2d 6 (Mass. 1964).
India in this case.36 Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last
resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule
of law. H.M. Seervai also in his writings acknowledged that the Indian Constitution had basic
features such as the rule of law and judicial review.37

In this judgment, unusual happenings on the Bench took place. When it came to the discussion in
Article 21 of Indian Constitution, codifies the essential ingredient of the Dicean Rule of Law which
says that no one shall be arrested or imprisoned save for a breach of the law established before the
ordinary courts. The Supreme Court in several judgments has given effect to the doctrine of the Rule
of Law. In Bharat Singh‟s case,38 the Court declared that no action, which prejudicially or adversely
affects a person, could be taken without the sanction or authority of law. Rule of Law in the sense of
supremacy of the Constitution and the laws as opposed to arbitrariness. It is actually a protection
against arbitrary intervention in people‟s lives39 from the risk of an arbitrary application of political
power40. The Rule of Law has been ensured by providing for judicial review.

VARIETIES OF RULE OF LAW

In Gopalan‟s case, the role of the judiciary along with the Rule of law was stated as The working of
our complex system, full of checks and restraints on legislative, executive and judicial power is
favourable to liberty and justice. These checks and restraints are so many safeguards set around
individual rights and interests. That man is free who is protected from injury.

36
MENON N.R MADHAVA, RULE OF LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI,

FIRST PUBLICATION, 2008.p. 33.

37
MALIK, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CASE, p.35., SEE; AUSTIN GRANVILLE, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC
CONSTITUTION, A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW
DELHI,FIFTH INDIAN REPRINT,2008.p.362.

38
State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh (1967) 2 SCR 454.
39
RHETORIC MACCORMICK NEIL, RULE OF LAW, A THEORY OF LEGAL REASONING, LAW, STATE

AND PRACTICAL REASONOXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, FIRST PUBLICATION 2005.p. 25.

40
CLAES ERIK, DERROE WOTER, KEIRSBILCK BERT, FACING THE LIMITS OF THE LAW SPINGER-

VERLAG BERLIN HEEIDELBERG, 2009.p. 279.

The majority judgment led by Gajendragadkar, C.J. reiterated the earlier position held in Shankari
Prasad41 that Parliament‟s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited.

In Sajjan Singh‟s case42, Hidayatullah and Mudholkar raised doubts about the competence of
Parliament to amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights. In
Golaknath‟s case43 Subba Rao, C.J. overruled earlier decisions of the Court and held that the
Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution so as to take away the fundamental rights.

Legal scholars including Seervai44, Tripathi45 and M.P. JAIN46 claimed that the function of the Court
was to say what the Constitution provides, not to say what it should provide.

The Supreme Court struggled to keep itself alive and sustain people‟s faith in it. In Indira Gandhi v.
Raj Narain, the Court chose to increase its power without inviting immediate confrontation with the
Government. The time of this decision was therefore described by Seervai as the finest hour in the
life of the Supreme Court.47 A. Ray, CJ held that Art. 329A(4), inserted in the Constitution (39th
Amendment)Act 1975, was unconstitutional because the „validation of the election in the present
case is……not by applying any law and it, therefore, offends Rule of Law‟. But what it managed to
save in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain, it lost in A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla as the Court
surrendered and suspended the judicial review. But Khanna, J., in the minority opinion had held
“Even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the State has got no power to deprive a person
of his life or liberty without the authority of law. This is the essential postulate and basic assumption
of the rule of law...”48 He also stated that “Rule of Law is the antithesis of arbitrariness…Rule of
Law is now accepted norm of all civilized societies…..” Ray C.J. in this case said that “Constitution
is the Rule of Law. No one can rise above the rule of law in the Constitution.”

41
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union Of India And State Of Bihar AIR 1951 SC 458.
42
Sajjan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845.
43
I.C. GOLAKNATH AND ORS. v. State of Punjab and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1643.
44
SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, PP. 1090-1119(1 ED. TRIPATHI, 1967).
45
TRIPATHI, P.K. “GOLAKNATH: A CRITIQUE‟ IN SOME INSIGHTS INTO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS,

p.1. (UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY, 1972).

46
JAIN, M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PP. 707-10 (3ED TRIPATHI, 1978).
47
SEERVAI, H.M., EMERGENCY, FUTURE SAFEGUARDS AND THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE: A

CRITICISM, P.4 (TRIPATHI, 1978) P. 260.

48
A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207.
Justice Bhagwati in the case of Minerva Mills v. India49 held that “It is for the judiciary to uphold the
constitutional values and to enforce the constitutional limitations. That is the essence of the rule of
law, which inter alia requires that "the exercise of powers by the Government whether it be the
legislature or the executive or any other authority, be conditioned by the Constitution and the law."
The power of judicial review is an integral part of our constitutional system and without it, there will
be no Government of laws and the rule of law would become a teasing illusion and a promise of
unreality. In this case, the Supreme Court asserted the power to review a constitutional amendment.
Under Article 19 (5), Shah. J., observed “...the rule of law which includes judicial review of arbitrary
executive action.”50 In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Ors.,51 the principle was
further enunciated with the perception of the Rule of Law by “The humane thread of jail
jurisprudence that runs right through is that no prison authority enjoys amnesty for
unconstitutionality...”

The Constitutional Bench speaking through S.K.Das, J., relied upon the decision in Wazir Chand‟s
case52 which held that Article 31(1) had been violated by the State in depriving the petitioner of his
possessory right to property, allowed the petition with the observation that “the action taken by the
State... is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law.” In the case of Jaysinghani53, a
reference to the Rule of Law was made by Ramaswami, J., that, “In this context it is important to
emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our
whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when
conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits.”

To substantiate the rule of law from this point of view, the decisions should be made by the
application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and
the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule

49
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1789.

50
State Of M.P. v. Bharat Singh AIR 1967 SC 1170 (pp. 5).
51
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Ors. AIR1978SC1675.
52
Wazir Chand v. State Of H.P. (1955) 1 SCR 408 (p.414).
53
Jaysinghani v. Union OF India AIR 1967 SC 1427 (pp. 14).
it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule
of law.54 "Law has reached its finest moments", stated Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderlick55,
"when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler...

Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered". It is in this sense that the rule of law may be
said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it in classic terms in the
case of John Wilkes56 "means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by
humor: it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful".

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also stated “The basic principle of the rule of law holds that the
exercise of power by the executive or any other authority must not only be conditioned by the
Constitution but must also be in accordance with law and the power of judicial review is conferred
by the Constitution with a view to ensuring that the law is observed and there is compliance with
the requirement of law on the part of the executive and other authorities. It is through the power of
judicial review conferred on an independent institutional authority such as the High Court that the
rule of law is maintained and every organ of the State is kept within the limits of the law. If the
exercise of the power of judicial review can be set at naught by the State Government by over-riding
the decision given against it, it would sound the death knell the rule of law.57

The landmark judgment in a recent case stated various propositions relating to the discussed
principle were of "Equality, rule of law, judicial review and separation of powers form parts of the
basic structure of the Constitution. Each of these concepts are intimately connected. There can be no
rule of law, if there is no equality before the law. These would be meaningless if the violation was
not subject to the judicial review. All these would be redundant if the legislative, executive and
judicial powers are vested in one organ. Therefore, the duty to decide whether the limits have been
transgressed has been placed on the judiciary.”58

54
(See Dicey - "Law of the Constitution" - Tenth Edition., Introduction ex.).
55
342 U.S. 98.
56
[1770] 4 Burr. 2528.
57
P. Sambamurthy & Ors. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 1987 SCR (1) 879.

58
State Of WEST BENGAL & Ors V. The Committee For Protection Of Democratic Rights, WEST BENGAL & Ors.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6249-6250 0F 2001 (SUPREME COURT).

 CONCLUSION

Rule of Law should establish a uniform pattern for harmonious existence in a society where every
individual should exercise his own rights to his best advantage to achieve excellence, subject to the
protective discrimination. The best advantage of one person could be the worst disadvantage to
another. Law stepped in to iron out such creases and ensures equality of protection to individuals as
well as group of liberty. Therefore, law is the foundation on which the potential of the society stands.
Hence it can be assumed that where the rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered
discretion or unaccountable action. Judicial activism has advanced the cause of justice by realizing
the hopes and aspirations of the people and to strengthen the foundation of Rule of Law which is the
bedrock.

It may be conclude quoting the words of N.A Palkhiwala:

“The danger to our democracy is that the noise created by a few politicians is misunderstood as the
voice of masses and the well-thought out advice tendered by experts and persons of maturity are
ignored as the voice of reactionaries”.

Those words of a sage-cum-jurist shall not be ignored. Let the sacrifices made by our great leaders in
the past generation inspire the new generation to preserve the Rule of Law adumbrated in the
Constitution of India.