There are no items in your cart
Add More
Add More
| Item Details | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|
TGPSC GROUP-I MAINS ANSWER WRITING SERIES
Sat Jun 28, 2025
Q. Distinguish between 'Rule of Law' and 'Rule by Law'. Examine how the Indian constitutional framework ensures the supremacy of Rule of Law over Rule by law.
| |
Introduction:
-Begin by establishing the distinction: Rule by Law refers to the instrumental use of law by authority, while Rule of Law is rooted in constitutional supremacy, legal accountability, and moral legitimacy. Cite Articles 14 and 21 as foundational.
Body:
1. Conceptual Clarity
-Rule of Law: Ensures non-arbitrariness, equality before law, and due process.
-Rule by Law: Focuses on procedural legality, even if unjust in spirit.
-Contrast through Table: Constitutional basis, outcomes, and legal philosophy.
2. Indian Constitutional Safeguards
-Article 14 – equality before law, check on arbitrary power.
-Article 21 – due process (Maneka Gandhi case).
-Basic Structure Doctrine – Kesavananda Bharati ensures Rule of Law is unamendable.
-Judicial Review – Minerva Mills case curbs legislative excess.
-PILs & Writs (Art. 32 & 226) – access to constitutional remedie
-Conclusion:
-End by asserting that the Indian Constitution embeds Rule of Law as a moral and legal restraint on power, ensuring that all authority remains subordinate to justice, fairness, and constitutional values.
Introduction:
The application of Section 124A IPC (Sedition Law) to suppress peaceful dissent reflects Rule by Law—the use of legal authority without moral justification. In contrast, Rule of Law, as articulated in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), mandates that all laws must conform to constitutional values of justice, equality, and fairness.
Body:
I. Conceptual Distinction between ‘Rule of Law’ & ‘Rule by Law’
1. Rule of Law rests on the principle that the State itself is governed by law, ensuring non-arbitrariness, legal equality, and procedural fairness.
a. Supremacy of law, eliminating arbitrariness;
b. Equality before law, ensuring uniform treatment;
c. Legal spirit, requiring conformity to constitutional principles.
2. Rule by Law, on the other hand, refers to a system where legality is reduced to a tool of power. It allows the State to enact and enforce laws, even if they are unjust, discriminatory, or coercive.
3.The distinction lies in moral legitimacy: Rule of Law checks power, Rule by Law enables unchecked authority.
| Dimension |
Rule of Law |
Rule by Law |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 14, 21, Basic Structure | Statutory legitimacy without constitutional alignment |
| Legal Philosophy | Rights-based, fairness-centric | Power-centric, procedure-only |
| Outcome |
Justice with restraint |
Legality without liberty |
II. Indian Constitutional Safeguards:
1. Article 14 guarantees legal equality and prohibits arbitrary action by the State.
2. Article 21, as reinterpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), embeds substantive due process, expanding the scope of life and liberty beyond procedural law.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) recognizes Rule of Law as part of the Basic Structure, immune to constitutional amendment.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) reiterates that Parliament’s power is limited by judicial review and constitutional supremacy.
5. Articles 32 and 226 empower citizens to challenge unjust laws and actions, reinforcing constitutional accountability.
6.The evolution of Public Interest Litigation ensures access to justice and strengthens democratic oversight over executive excess.
Conclusion:
Indian constitutional jurisprudence, through Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, and Minerva Mills, institutionalizes Rule of Law as a fundamental constraint on power. By aligning legality with justice, it ensures governance that respects liberty, restrains arbitrariness, and sustains constitutional democracy.