Others argue that the rule of law has survived, but has been transformed to allow directors to exercise their discretion. For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law in this environment has been a version of A.V. Dicey: “No human being is punishable or legally can be made to suffer from body or property, except for a clear violation of the law established in the ordinary legal manner in the ordinary courts of the land.” That is to say, individuals should be able to challenge an administrative order by bringing an action before a court of general jurisdiction. As lists of workers` compensation boards, utility boards, and other agencies came into being, it quickly became clear that it was overwhelming for the courts to leave the benefits of specialization, which led to the creation of administrative authorities in the first place, decide for themselves whether judges would decide all the facts in a dispute themselves (for example. B the extent of an offence in a workers` compensation case). Even Charles Evans Hughes, a chief justice of the United States, believed, “You must have an administration, and you must have an administration of administrative officials.” By 1941, a compromise had emerged. If the directors applied procedures that more or less pursued the “ordinary legal nature” of the courts, there was no need to pursue the control of the facts by “the ordinary courts of the country”. That is, if you had your “day at the Commission”, the rule of law did not require another “day in court”. Thus, Dicey`s rule of law has been transformed into a purely procedural form. [57] Submit your article via our online form Click here Note* We only accept original articles, we do not accept articles that have already been published on other websites. For more details, please contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com “We are in holy orders and recognize only one law, the law of Dharma, the law of life that embraces, sustains and unites all the activities of life. Sankaracharya Summary: The rule of law is a common undertaking proclaimed by international organizations and national governments as a prerequisite for acceptable modern governance, but in India, it is only in British rule that the concept of the “rule of law” is implanted in the Dharma-governed country.

Basically, Indians are very practical and have never attached undue importance to the dead letter of the law, they have adhered to the living norms of the “Dharma”. Unfortunately, due to the effects of English education, the so-called scholarly ruler of independent India failed to access the high ideals of his ancestors who governed the administration of justice in the period before the invasion, that is, between 300 and 1200 AD. The implication of this development is that the constitution of India is essentially built on Western notions, it fails to integrate the social, political, cultural, moral and spiritual ethics of peoples. Today, the “rule of law” in India is on the verge of losing its foundations as a powerful norm of social order because it is not “the government of the law” that can govern the country, but it is the “government of the wise” that governs the country, “the rule of law has failed to achieve equality in a pluralistic society like India, it failed because the most benevolent law can be applied in the most tyrannical way, the rule in India, even after almost 300 years of rule in that country, failed to establish trust between people, still solving more than 70% of cases outside the courts. Today, we see discontent between the public and the justice system and dissatisfaction among a large number of people because they do not get justice or, when they are done, arrive too late. The problem of corruption in the country`s judiciary, politics and bureaucrats has exposed the shortcomings of the “rule of law”. Problem of white-collar crime, fraud, the “financing of policies” by which capitalism has influenced the legislature and thus plundered the country`s resources. Given these unhealthy developments that hinder the nation`s growth, the purpose of this article is to assess the relevance of the “rule of law” in India and to deconstruct the concept of the “rule of law”. It is about analyzing some of the weaknesses of the idea and aiming to build a better legal system for the Indian people based on their own legal thinking.

The rule of law has a long normative history that favors it as the first contribution of Euro-American liberal political theory. Although there is no consensus on when the rule of law came into being, it is believed that the two fundamental principles of the rule of law have existed since the earliest times: those in power should not legislate (the separation of powers) and all peoples (including those in power) should be bound by laws. This thought was not exclusively related to religious belief. A more secular approach to the rule of law was chosen by Socrates, who, when convicted by the Athens Grand Jury for corrupting youth with his teachings, despite the possibility of fleeing, decided to accept the death penalty to demonstrate his loyalty to the supremacy of the rule of law. Then Plato, who expressed: “Where the law is subject to another authority and does not have its own, the collapse of the state is not far in my opinion, but if the law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promises and people enjoy all the blessings that all the gods pour out on a state.” This declaration, which was later considered a source of the rule of law, was considered by Aristotle in politics as “the primacy of law preferable to that of an individual”, and it was Professor A.V. Dicey, in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), who elaborated the modern concept of the rule of law. This so-called sublime ideal of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence did not take much time to devour Britten`s colonies, it is the same in the case of India, although the British realized that there was a legal system before their arrival, but little by little he managed to implant their legal system. The concept of the rule of law in the 19th and 20th centuries gained a lot of prestige, making it not only accepted in England and its colonies, but also becoming the international norm. After India`s independence, the rule of law was considered the foundation of the legal system, the “rule of law” was the basic rule of governance of any civilized democratic system. Our constitutional system is based on the concept of the rule of law, which we have adopted and have adopted. Everyone, whether individual or collective, is undoubtedly under the primacy of the law.

Whoever the person is, no matter how tall they are, no one is above the law, no matter how powerful and rich they are. In order to achieve the establishment of the rule of law, the Constitution has entrusted the special task to the country`s judiciary. It is only through the courts that the rule of law deploys its content and justifies its concept. As I have already explained, the concept of the rule of law, although accepted in India, has not achieved the objectives for which it was adopted, although the judiciary confirms it as a constitutional norm, never bears satisfactory fruit. Let`s analyze the importance and impact of the rule of law since its inception in India. II. Meaning of the “rule of law” The founder of the modern “rule of law”, A.V. Dicey, believed that there were two principles inherent in the uncodified British constitution.

The first and main principle was the “sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament”. .