Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Concept of Rule of Law

    Uploaded by

    Flex Minerals
    - Professor A.V. Dicey defined the rule of law as consisting of three main principles: the supremacy of law over arbitrary power, equality before the law, and that laws are made and can be changed by the ordinary law-making process. - Modern interpretations of the rule of law have expanded it to include principles like accountability, absence of arbitrariness, and fairness in decision making. - Whether legislative arbitrariness is subject to the rule of law depends on how the rule of law is defined - under Dicey's narrow definition it may not be, but under the broader modern definition which emphasizes accountability and absence of arbitrariness, it likely would be.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Concept of Rule of Law

    Uploaded by

    Flex Minerals
    90 views2 pages
    - Professor A.V. Dicey defined the rule of law as consisting of three main principles: the supremacy of law over arbitrary power, equality before the law, and that laws are made and can be changed by the ordinary law-making process. - Modern interpretations of the rule of law have expanded it to include principles like accountability, absence of arbitrariness, and fairness in decision making. - Whether legislative arbitrariness is subject to the rule of law depends on how the rule of law is defined - under Dicey's narrow definition it may not be, but under the broader modern definition which emphasizes accountability and absence of arbitrariness, it likely would be.

    Original Title

    Concept of Rule of law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Professor A.V. Dicey defined the rule of law as consisting of three main principles: the supremacy of law over arbitrary power, equality before the law, and that laws are made and can be changed by the ordinary law-making process. - Modern interpretations of the rule of law have expanded it to include principles like accountability, absence of arbitrariness, and fairness in decision making. - Whether legislative arbitrariness is subject to the rule of law depends on how the rule of law is defined - under Dicey's narrow definition it may not be, but under the broader modern definition which emphasizes accountability and absence of arbitrariness, it likely would be.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    90 views2 pages

    Concept of Rule of Law

    Uploaded by

    Flex Minerals
    - Professor A.V. Dicey defined the rule of law as consisting of three main principles: the supremacy of law over arbitrary power, equality before the law, and that laws are made and can be changed by the ordinary law-making process. - Modern interpretations of the rule of law have expanded it to include principles like accountability, absence of arbitrariness, and fairness in decision making. - Whether legislative arbitrariness is subject to the rule of law depends on how the rule of law is defined - under Dicey's narrow definition it may not be, but under the broader modern definition which emphasizes accountability and absence of arbitrariness, it likely would be.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Explain the concept of ‘Rule of law’ propounded by Prof. A.V.

    Dicey drawing attention to its


    criticism in modern times. Is the legislative arbitrariness subject to Rule of law? Give
    reasons for your answer.

    INTRODUCTION
    The ‘rule of law’ is an ephemeral phrase which is used to mean a variety of things according
    to the context in which it is being used. It may be used to mean that people must act according
    to the law, ie that the law is supreme and must be obeyed. In this context it is used to suggest
    that citizens must act lawfully and, should they want to effect change, they must operate
    through the normal democratic processes. In particular, this use of the ‘rule of law’ denies
    any legitimacy to acts of terrorism. In the context of administrative law, the principle also
    requires that government acts according to law.
    The rule of law also demands that the law itself fulfils minimum standards. It is this concept
    with which we are concerned in the context of judicial review where the ‘rule of law’ assumes
    meanings encompassing principles of accountability, equality, the absence of arbitrariness
    and the presence of fairness in decision-making.
    Dicey, writing in 1885, identified the rule of law as one of two features which have at all times
    since the Norman Conquest characterised the political institutions of England, the other of
    these features being the omnipotence or undisputed supremacy of the central government
    (see AV Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edn, 1959,
    Macmillan, at pp 183–84). By ‘rule of law’ Dicey meant ‘the security given under the English
    constitution to the rights of individuals looked at from various points of view’. He identified
    the rule of law, as a characteristic of the English constitution, as including at least three
    distinct though kindred concepts:
    • ‘It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as
    opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of
    prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.
    Englishmen are ruled by the law, and by the law alone; a man may with us be punished for a
    breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else.’
    In this context, Dicey noted the case of Entick v Carrington (1765)
    • ‘... not only that with us no man is above the law, but (what is a different thing) that here
    every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and
    amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.’
    ‘It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary
    law administered by the ordinary law courts ...’
    Dicey was anxious to draw a comparison with the French system of droit administratif and
    tribunaux administratifs whereby complaints against the actions of the administration are
    dealt with by specially constituted courts. This system (which he appears to have
    misunderstood) he perceived as being weighted in favour of the administration.
    • ‘... the constitution is pervaded by the rule of law on the ground that the general principles
    of the constitution ... are with us the result of judicial decisions ... Our constitution, in short,
    is a judge made constitution ... There is ... an absence of those declarations or definitions of
    rights so dear to foreign constitutionalists.’
    This difference was noted by Dicey to be one of form. However, he perceived the advantage
    of the English model to be that it ensured that where a right existed it was accompanied by a
    remedy – ubi ius ibi remedium.
    Yet another meaning given to the rule of law is that laws should be prospective, open, clear
    and stable (see Raz, ‘The Rule of Law and its Virtue’ (1977) 93 LQR 195).
    The principles of accountability and the absence of wide discretionary power on the part of
    government are of particular significance in administrative law.

    The modern concept of the Rule of Law is fairly wide and, therefore, sets up an idea for
    government to achieve. This concept was developed by the International Commission of
    Jurists, known as Delhi Declaration, 1959, which was later on confirmed at Lagos in 1961.
    According to this formulation, the Rule of Law implies that the functions of the government
    in a free society should be so exercised as to create conditions in which the dignity of man as
    an individual is upheld.
    During the last few years the Supreme Court in India has developed some fine principles of
    Third World jurisprudence. Developing the same new constitutionalism further, the Apex
    Court in Veena Seth v. State (AIR 1983 SC 339) of Bihar extended the reach of the Rule of Law
    to the poor and the 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 the means to fight for their rights and very often do so for the perpetuation of the status
    quo, which protects and preserves their dominance and permits them to exploit a large
    section of the community. The opportunity for this ruling was provided by a letter written by
    the Free Legal Aid Committee, Hazaribagh, Bihar drawing its attention to unjustified and
    illegal detention of certain prisoners in jail for almost two or three decades.
    Recent aggressive judicial activism can only be seen as a part of the efforts of the
    Constitutional Courts in India to establish rule-of-law society, which implies that no matter
    how high a person, may be the law is always above him. Court is also trying to identify the
    concept of rule of law with human rights of the people. The Court is developing techniques
    by which it can force the government not only to submit to the law but also to create
    conditions where people can develop capacities to exercise their rights properly and
    meaningfully. The public administration is responsible for effective implementation of rule of
    law and constitutional commands, which effectuate fairly the objective standards laid down
    by law. Every public servant is a trustee of the society and is accountable for due effectuation
    of constitutional goals. This makes the concept of rule of law highly relevant to our context.

    You might also like