Rule of Law: Meaning, Dicey’s Three Principles, Indian Constitution and Supreme Court Cases
Rule of Law Meaning | Dicey’s Rule of Law | Rule of Law in India | Article 14 21 | Kesavananda Bharati | Maneka Gandhi | ADM Jabalpur | Basic Structure | Judiciary Exam Notes | Last Updated July 2026
| Rule of Law — Key Facts at a Glance: Meaning: No one is above the law — not the government, not the executive, not Parliament. Every exercise of power must be authorised by law. Origin of phrase: French “le principe de legalite” (principle of legality) Chief exponent: Professor A.V. Dicey — “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution” (1885) Dicey’s three principles: 1. Supremacy of law — no arbitrary power, no punishment without breach of law 2. Equality before law — same law applies to everyone, including government 3. Predominance of legal spirit — Constitution is result of ordinary law, not source In Indian Constitution: Rule of law is part of the BASIC STRUCTURE — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) Key Articles: Article 13 (judicial review), Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (due process), Article 32 and 226 (remedies) Latest SC test of Rule of Law: Electoral Bonds Case (2024) — transparency in political funding held to be a Rule of Law requirement |
Rule of law is one of those concepts that sounds simple until you sit down to write a Mains answer on it. “No one is above the law” — every student knows this. But the Mains examiner is not testing whether you know the phrase. They are testing whether you know Dicey’s three principles precisely, which of those principles applies in India and which does not, how the Indian Supreme Court has developed the doctrine beyond Dicey, and what happens when the State itself violates the rule of law — as it did in ADM Jabalpur (1976) and as was later corrected in Puttaswamy (2017). This article covers all of that in the order a Mains answer should.
What Is the Rule of Law? — Definition and Origin
The rule of law is the principle that all persons and institutions — the government, the executive, the legislature, and private individuals — are equally subject to law that is publicly known, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. It is the opposite of arbitrary power: instead of a ruler’s personal discretion deciding what happens to people, it is pre-established legal rules that govern.
The phrase comes from the French “le principe de legalite” — the principle of legality. In Indian administrative law and constitutional law, it means that every exercise of state power must trace itself back to a legal source. An officer who detains a person without legal authority has violated the rule of law. A statute that gives unlimited discretionary power to an executive officer without any guiding principles violates the rule of law. A court that delivers a judgment without hearing the parties violates the rule of law. The doctrine pervades the entire legal system.
A.V. Dicey’s Three Principles of Rule of Law — The Foundation
Albert Venn Dicey, the British constitutional theorist, gave the most influential formulation of the rule of law in his 1885 work “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution.” He identified three core principles. Understanding all three — and knowing which of the three does and does not apply in India — is essential for the constitutional law paper.
Principle 1 — Supremacy of Law (No Arbitrary Power)
Dicey’s first principle is that the law is supreme and that there is no room for arbitrary power, wide discretionary authority, or privilege on the part of the government. No person may be punished or made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before ordinary courts. The government cannot act against a citizen’s rights or liberty unless it has clear legal authority for that action.
In practice, this means: if a police officer arrests someone without a warrant and without legal justification, that arrest violates the rule of law. If the government demolishes a house without legal authority, that action violates the rule of law. Legal authority must exist before the State acts, and that authority must be specific — not a general discretionary power to “do what is necessary.”
Principle 2 — Equality Before Law
Dicey’s second principle is that every person — whatever their rank, status, or condition — is subject to the same law administered by the same courts. No person is above the law. The government and its officials are subject to the same law as ordinary citizens. If a government officer commits a tort, they can be sued in the same ordinary courts as a private person.
This principle connects directly to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to all persons. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75) held that Article 14 embodies the rule of law in its equality dimension — the same law must apply to similarly situated persons.
Principle 3 — Predominance of Legal Spirit (Constitution as Result of Ordinary Law)
Dicey’s third principle is that in England, constitutional law is not the source of the rights of citizens but the result of the ordinary law. Rights of individuals — liberty, property, personal freedom — exist because they are protected by ordinary courts applying ordinary law, not because they are written in a constitutional document.
This third principle does not apply in India. India has a written Constitution that is the supreme law of the land. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and enforced through it. Dicey’s third principle was formulated for the British unwritten constitutional tradition — it does not translate to a jurisdiction with a codified constitution.
| Dicey’s Third Principle Does Not Apply in India — Critical Exam Point: Dicey formulated Principle 3 based on the British constitutional system where rights flow from ordinary law and judicial decisions, not a written constitution. India has a written Constitution that is the supreme law (Article 13). Rights are granted by the Constitution itself — Articles 12 to 35. The Constitution is the source of rights, not their result. Therefore: In India, Dicey’s first two principles apply. His third principle does not — our Constitution is the source, not the product, of our rights. Exam trap: Many candidates write all three principles as if they apply in India. A good Mains answer explicitly notes that Principle 3 is inapplicable here. |
Rule of Law in the Indian Constitution — Where It Appears
India’s Constitution does not use the phrase “rule of law” directly. But the doctrine is embedded throughout the constitutional text and has been explicitly held by the Supreme Court to be part of the basic structure.
| Constitutional Provision | Connection to Rule of Law |
| Article 13 — Judicial Review | Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are void. This is the core judicial review power — government cannot make laws that violate the Constitution. The judiciary checks legislative power. |
| Article 14 — Equality Before Law | Codifies Dicey’s second principle directly. Every person is equal before law and is entitled to equal protection of laws. Arbitrary state action violates Article 14 and therefore the rule of law. |
| Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty | No person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to procedure established by law. Post-Maneka Gandhi (1978), this procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable — not any procedure. |
| Article 22 — Safeguards on Arrest and Detention | Specific protections: right to be informed of grounds of arrest, right to consult an advocate, production before magistrate within 24 hours. These directly implement the rule of law in criminal procedure. |
| Articles 32 and 226 — Remedies | The right to move the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) when rights are violated. Without effective remedies, rule of law is only theoretical. These articles make it real. |
| Articles 52-78 and 153-167 — Executive Power | The President, Governors, and all executive officers act within the powers granted by law. They cannot act beyond the Constitution or contrary to statute. Ultra vires acts are void. |
| Articles 121 and 211 — Judicial Independence | Parliament and state legislatures cannot discuss the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. Judicial independence is a prerequisite for rule of law. |
Rule of Law as Basic Structure — Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
The most significant holding about the rule of law in Indian constitutional history came in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461). A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court — the largest ever assembled — held in a 7:6 majority that the Indian Constitution has a basic structure that Parliament cannot destroy even through a constitutional amendment. Rule of law was expressly identified as one of the elements of this basic structure.
What this means in practice: Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys the rule of law. A constitutional amendment that eliminated judicial review, or that placed executive power beyond legal accountability, would violate the basic structure and would be struck down by the Supreme Court.
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — What the Supreme Court Held on Rule of Law: Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) Bench: 13 judges | Majority: 7:6 Key holdings relevant to Rule of Law: 1. The Constitution has a basic structure that even Parliament cannot destroy through a constitutional amendment under Article 368. 2. Rule of law is expressly part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 3. Supremacy of the Constitution — not parliamentary supremacy — is the foundational principle. The Constitution is supreme; Parliament operates within it, not above it. 4. Judicial review — the power of courts to test legislation against the Constitution — is itself part of the basic structure. Without it, rule of law would be unenforceable. What this overruled: In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court had held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights at all. Kesavananda took a more balanced position: Parliament can amend, but cannot destroy the basic structure — including the rule of law. |
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — Rule of Law and Personal Liberty
The second landmark development came in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597). The passport of Maneka Gandhi, a journalist, was impounded by the government under the Passport Act 1967 without giving her any reason and without any hearing. She challenged this before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored primarily by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must not be any procedure — it must be a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. A procedure that is arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful does not satisfy the constitutional requirement.
Before Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court had held in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27) that “procedure established by law” simply meant any procedure that a legislature had validly enacted — even an arbitrary or unfair procedure. Maneka Gandhi expressly departed from this narrow reading and held that the procedure must satisfy the requirements of natural justice and must not be arbitrary.
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — The Three-Way Connection: Justice Bhagwati held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are not water-tight compartments. A law affecting personal liberty must satisfy all three: Article 14: The law must not be arbitrary — it must satisfy equality. Article 19: The law must not impose unreasonable restrictions on freedoms. Article 21: The procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable. A law that clears one hurdle but fails another is still unconstitutional. This “golden triangle” test is the practical expression of rule of law in India — law must be not just formally enacted but substantively fair. What it means for rule of law: procedural due process is now constitutionally guaranteed in India. The State cannot take away life or liberty by following a procedure that is itself unjust or arbitrary. |
ADM Jabalpur (1976) — When the Rule of Law Was Suspended
No article on rule of law in India is complete without ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207). This case represents the lowest point in Indian constitutional history on the question of rule of law — and it is critically important for judiciary exam Mains essays precisely because it shows what happens when the doctrine is abandoned.
During the Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in June 1975, thousands of people were detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and the Defence of India Rules. Habeas corpus petitions were filed in High Courts across the country by detainees challenging their detention. The High Courts granted relief.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court. In April 1976, a Constitution Bench of five judges — Chief Justice A.N. Ray, Justices M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, and H.R. Khanna — had to decide: during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 359, can a person detained under a law claim before a High Court that their detention is illegal because it violates Article 21?
Four of the five judges held no — during an Emergency, the right to move any court for enforcement of Article 21 is suspended. If the government detains you without legal authority, you cannot challenge that detention in any court. Only Justice H.R. Khanna dissented — holding that even during Emergency, the state cannot take away life or liberty without legal authority, because that would mean rule of law itself is suspended, and the rule of law is the foundation of the entire constitutional order.
| ADM Jabalpur (1976) — Why This Case Still Matters: Four judges held: During Emergency, courts cannot look into detention even if the detaining authority has acted without legal authority. Justice Khanna’s dissent: “The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It is the basic postulate of our Constitution… Even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.” Consequence of Khanna’s dissent: He was superseded for the appointment of Chief Justice of India — the next three judges junior to him were appointed CJI ahead of him. He resigned. Overruling in 2017: In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, a 9-judge bench expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur, holding that it was “incorrectly decided.” Justice Khanna’s dissent was vindicated 41 years later. Exam angle: ADM Jabalpur is the case that shows Rule of Law is not self- executing — it depends on courts having the independence to enforce it even against the government. Justice Khanna’s dissent is one of the bravest judicial acts in Indian legal history. |
Puttaswamy (2017) — Rule of Law Restored and ADM Jabalpur Overruled
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 — the Right to Privacy case decided by a 9-judge bench — the Supreme Court expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur. The bench held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 exists independently of the right to enforce it — and that even during Emergency, the State cannot deprive a person of life or liberty without the authority of law. Justice Khanna’s dissent in ADM Jabalpur was declared to represent the correct constitutional position.
The Puttaswamy judgment did far more than overrule ADM Jabalpur. It held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, that dignity is a constitutional value, and that state action that violates privacy without legal authority is a violation of the rule of law. This has direct implications for surveillance, data collection, and any state action that intrudes on personal information without a legal basis.
Electoral Bonds Case (2024) — The Latest Test of Rule of Law
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024 INSC 121), decided on 15 February 2024 by a 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional. The scheme had been introduced in 2018 to allow anonymous political funding through bonds purchased from the State Bank of India.
The Court held that the scheme violated the voters’ right to information about political funding — and that transparency in political financing is itself a rule of law requirement. When the source of money flowing into political parties is deliberately made anonymous, citizens cannot hold their elected representatives accountable. Accountability is a core component of the rule of law, and a scheme that systematically undermines accountability fails the rule of law test.
This is the most recent Supreme Court judgment that applies rule of law reasoning to a contemporary governance question. For 2026 judiciary exam candidates, the Electoral Bonds case is the freshest illustration of what rule of law means in practice — not just in a historical case but in a live political and legal controversy.
Exceptions and Limitations on the Rule of Law in India
The rule of law is not absolute in India. The Constitution itself provides for certain exceptions and modifications. Knowing these is essential because Mains questions frequently ask you to “critically examine” the rule of law — which means acknowledging where it operates with limitations.
| Exception/Limitation | Constitutional Basis | How It Limits Rule of Law |
| Emergency Powers | Articles 352-360 | During a national emergency, certain fundamental rights can be suspended under Article 359. Parliament can make laws on state subjects. The scope for arbitrary executive action expands. ADM Jabalpur showed the danger. |
| Presidential and Governor’s Immunities | Articles 361 | The President of India and Governors of States are immune from criminal proceedings during their term of office. Civil proceedings require two months’ notice. This creates a formal exception from ordinary legal process. |
| Parliamentary Privileges | Articles 105 and 194 | Members of Parliament and state legislatures cannot be prosecuted for anything said in Parliament or in legislative proceedings. This is a domain where ordinary law does not apply to elected representatives. |
| Judicial Immunity | Established by case law | Judges cannot be sued for acts done in their judicial capacity. This protects judicial independence but creates a class of persons who cannot be held liable in the usual way. |
| Delegated Legislation and Administrative Discretion | Various statutes | Modern governance requires extensive delegated legislative power and wide administrative discretion. Dicey was hostile to administrative discretion as inconsistent with rule of law. Indian courts have adapted the doctrine to permit discretion that is guided, structured, and reviewable. |
| Special Courts and Tribunals | Articles 323A and 323B | Specialised forums for tax, service, and administrative disputes — separate from ordinary courts. Dicey opposed separate administrative courts as violating equality before law. India has accepted them subject to the condition that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is retained — L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125). |
Rule of Law vs Arbitrariness — Article 14 and the Wednesbury Standard
The most practically tested dimension of rule of law in Indian courts is the challenge to arbitrary state action under Article 14. The Supreme Court has held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action — it guarantees not just formal equality but substantive non-arbitrariness.
In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555), Justice Bhagwati held that equality is a dynamic concept and Article 14 is a guarantee against arbitrariness. The Court said: “Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.”
The English equivalent is the Wednesbury standard from Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) — a decision is unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made it. Indian courts apply a similar but somewhat expanded standard — decisions must be reasonable, must not be based on irrelevant considerations, and must not fail to take into account relevant considerations.
Rule of Law and Natural Justice — The Procedural Dimension
Rule of law has two dimensions — substantive and procedural. The substantive dimension says the law itself must be fair, clear, and consistent. The procedural dimension says the process by which decisions are made must also be fair. Natural justice is the procedural expression of the rule of law.
| Principle of Natural Justice | Meaning | Connection to Rule of Law |
| Audi alteram partem — Hear the other side | No person shall be condemned without being given an opportunity to be heard. Before any adverse decision is made, the affected person must be given notice and a chance to respond. | Without the right to be heard, state power operates arbitrarily. The rule of law requires not just legal authority but fair process. |
| Nemo judex in causa sua — No one shall be a judge in their own cause | A person who has an interest in the outcome of a proceeding cannot sit in judgment over it. Decision-makers must be impartial. | An interested judge cannot deliver unbiased justice. Rule of law requires independent and impartial adjudication. |
| Speaking orders / Reasoned decisions | Administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must give reasons for their decisions. An unreasoned order cannot be effectively challenged. | Reasons make decisions reviewable — and reviewability is the mechanism through which rule of law is enforced. Without reasons, judicial review is impeded. |
Leading Supreme Court Cases on Rule of Law — Complete Reference
| Case | Year | Key Holding for Rule of Law | Exam Angle |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 — AIR 1973 SC 1461 | Rule of law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Parliament cannot destroy it even through a constitutional amendment. | Quote this whenever the question is about whether rule of law can be abrogated by Parliament. The answer is no. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 — AIR 1978 SC 597 | Procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable. Articles 14, 19, and 21 form a golden triangle — all three must be satisfied. | Use this when the question involves procedure — arrest, detention, deprivation of liberty. The procedure must itself be fair. |
| E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu | 1974 — AIR 1974 SC 555 | Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness. Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies — one belongs to rule of law, the other to absolute monarchy. | Use this quote directly in Mains essays — it is one of the most elegant formulations of rule of law in Indian jurisprudence. |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | 1970 — AIR 1970 SC 150 | Principles of natural justice are part of rule of law. Administrative decisions must comply with audi alteram partem and nemo judex. | Connects rule of law to administrative law — fairness in executive decision-making. |
| ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla | 1976 — AIR 1976 SC 1207 | 4:1 majority held courts could not examine detention during Emergency. Justice Khanna dissented — rule of law cannot be suspended. | Always cite Khanna’s dissent as the correct position — vindicated in Puttaswamy. Do not present the majority view as correct law. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | 1997 — AIR 1997 SC 1125 | Judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure — cannot be excluded by statute or tribunal legislation. | Use this when the question involves administrative tribunals limiting High Court review — that is constitutionally impermissible. |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 — (2017) 10 SCC 1 | ADM Jabalpur expressly overruled. Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Justice Khanna’s dissent vindicated. | Freshest overruling of ADM Jabalpur — always mention both together: what ADM Jabalpur got wrong, and how Puttaswamy corrected it. |
| Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds Case) | 2024 — 2024 INSC 121 | Electoral Bonds Scheme struck down. Transparency in political funding is a rule of law requirement. Accountability is core to rule of law. | Most recent (2024) SC case on rule of law — use in essays on contemporary challenges to rule of law in India. |
Rule of Law in Judiciary Mains — How to Write the Answer
“Write a note on the rule of law” and “Examine the rule of law under the Indian Constitution” are both standard Mains question types. The answer structure below works for both.
| Step | What to Write | Common Error to Avoid |
| Step 1 — Define | State meaning from Dicey’s formulation: no arbitrary power, all persons equal before law, Constitution as product of ordinary law. Note origin: French “le principe de legalite.” | Starting with a vague definition. Use Dicey’s specific three principles. |
| Step 2 — Dicey’s Three Principles | State each principle precisely. Then immediately note that Principle 3 (Constitution as result of ordinary law) does not apply in India because we have a written Constitution that is the source of rights. | Stating all three principles as applying in India — Principle 3 does not. This costs marks. |
| Step 3 — Constitutional Provisions | Cite Articles 13, 14, 21, 22, 32, 226 — each connecting to a specific aspect of rule of law. Article 14 = equality, Article 21 = due process, Article 32/226 = remedies. | Citing only Article 14 — Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi and Articles 32/226 are equally important. |
| Step 4 — Basic Structure | Cite Kesavananda Bharati (1973) — rule of law is part of basic structure, Parliament cannot destroy it. | Missing the basic structure angle entirely — this is what makes the rule of law entrenched in India. |
| Step 5 — Judicial Interpretation | Maneka Gandhi (1978) — procedure must be just fair reasonable. E.P. Royappa (1974) — arbitrariness is antithetical to rule of law. Puttaswamy (2017) — ADM Jabalpur overruled. | Citing only Kesavananda and missing Maneka Gandhi — which is the single most important rule of law judgment for procedural fairness. |
| Step 6 — ADM Jabalpur and Correction | ADM Jabalpur showed rule of law can be compromised when courts abandon it. Khanna dissent was the brave voice. Puttaswamy (2017) corrected the error. | Not mentioning ADM Jabalpur at all — a Mains essay that does not address the darkest moment in Indian rule of law history is incomplete. |
| Step 7 — Contemporary Application and Conclusion | Electoral Bonds (2024) as most recent test. Conclude: rule of law in India is well-grounded — it is part of basic structure, enforced by judicial review, protected by judicial independence. But it depends on courts having the will to enforce it. | A conclusion that only praises rule of law without acknowledging its limitations or the Emergency experience — good essays show analytical balance. |
Frequently Asked Questions — Rule of Law
What is the meaning of rule of law?
Rule of law means that all persons and institutions — the government, the executive, the legislature, officials, and private individuals — are subject to the same law, which is publicly known, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. No one is above the law. The government cannot act against citizens’ rights without clear legal authority. The phrase comes from the French “le principe de legalite” (the principle of legality). In India, the rule of law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) — and Parliament cannot destroy it even through a constitutional amendment.
What are Dicey’s three principles of rule of law?
Professor A.V. Dicey identified three principles of rule of law in his 1885 work “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”: (1) Supremacy of law — no arbitrary power, no punishment except for a clear breach of law established in ordinary courts; (2) Equality before law — every person regardless of rank or status is subject to the same law administered by the same courts; (3) Predominance of legal spirit — in England, constitutional principles are the result of ordinary law and judicial decisions, not the source. In India, only Dicey’s first two principles apply. The third does not — India has a written Constitution that is the supreme law of the land and is the source of rights, not their result.
Is rule of law part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) — decided by a 13-judge bench in a 7:6 majority — expressly held that rule of law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys the rule of law. Even under Article 368, which gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, the basic structure cannot be altered. Judicial review — the mechanism through which rule of law is enforced — is also itself part of the basic structure.
What did the Supreme Court hold in ADM Jabalpur regarding rule of law?
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207), decided during the Emergency of 1975-77, a 4:1 majority held that during a Proclamation of Emergency under Article 359, courts could not examine the legality of detention even if the government had no legal authority for the detention. This was widely criticised as a suspension of the rule of law. Only Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, holding that even during Emergency, the state cannot deprive a person of life or liberty without legal authority. Justice Khanna’s position was vindicated in 2017 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, where a 9-judge bench expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur as “incorrectly decided.”
How does Article 14 connect to the rule of law?
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws to all persons. It directly embodies Dicey’s second principle of rule of law — equality before law. The Supreme Court has held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action — any state action that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or based on irrelevant considerations violates Article 14 and therefore the rule of law. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555), Justice Bhagwati observed that “equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.”
Related Articles — Constitutional Law and Judiciary Exam Preparation
→ Fundamental Rights in India: Articles 12 to 35, Landmark Cases and Judiciary Exam Notes — Articles 14, 21, 32 — the constitutional pillars of rule of law
→ Res Judicata: Section 11 CPC, Constructive Res Judicata and Judiciary Exam Notes — Finality of judgments — another expression of rule of law in civil procedure
→ BNS Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections, IPC Comparison and Exam Notes — New criminal law — rule of law in criminal procedure under BNS and BNSS
→ BNSS vs CrPC: Complete Section-Wise Comparison for Judiciary Exam — Procedural due process under BNSS — safeguards on arrest, bail, and trial
→ Citizenship in India: Articles 5-11, Citizenship Act and 2026 Updates — Who is subject to Indian law — the personal scope of rule of law
→ RJS Online Coaching — Live Classes and Verified Results — Constitutional law preparation for RJS Prelims and Mains — rule of law is tested every cycle
→ Best Gujarat Judiciary Coaching — GJS Results — Rule of law is a core constitutional law topic in GJS Mains
All the best — from Jyoti Judiciary Coaching
Written by Advocate Jyoti Saxena — LLB, LLM, CS, Bar Council of Rajasthan, practising at Jaipur Family Court, Jaipur District Court, and the Rajasthan High Court. Constitutional law — including the rule of law doctrine — is applied in court proceedings daily. All Supreme Court case citations are verified from AIR and SCC. Contact: +91 99290 96546 | jyotijudiciary.com
All case citations verified from AIR and SCC Online. Dicey’s principles sourced from “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution” (1885). Kesavananda Bharati judgment available at judgments.ecourts.gov.in.
