The rule of law has always been defended as one of the building blocks on which modern society is based. Derived from the French expression “La Principe de Légale”, which translates to the principle of legality, it refers to a government based on principles of law and not on men. The concept of the rule of law is that the state is governed, not by the ruler or the appointed representatives of the people, but by the law. A country that enshrines the rule of law would be one in which the country's Grundnorm, or the fundamental law from which all other laws derive their authority, is the supreme authority of the state. The monarch or representatives of the republic are governed by laws derived from the Grundnorm and their powers are limited by law. The King is not the law but the law is queen. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay The basic essence of the rule of law is that no one is above the law of the land, be it the king, the legislators, the judiciary, etc. At this point, it is important to make a distinction between the rule of law and the rule of law. The rule of law is above political tug of war. The idea is that the law should be above every person and agency, whether strong or weak, rich or poor, etc. While the State by Law considers an idea that the law used an instrument of political power in order to control the citizens but tries never to allow a law to be used to control the State. Historical evolution of the rule of law Although AV Dicey's contribution to the rule of law remains, even to this day, primordial[4], the doctrine dates back to the ancient civilizations of Greece, India, the Roman Empire and China. The ancient Greeks initially viewed male domination as the best way to govern the empire.[5] Plato, who was the founder of the first institute of higher learning in the Western world[6], favored the idea of ​​a benevolent monarchy where there was a philosopher king who was above the law.[7] However, in doing so, he still hoped that the best men would respect existing laws and standards.[8] Aristotle, a student of Plato[9], was however completely opposed to this notion[10]. He expressed his opinion thus: "It is more proper for the law to govern than any of the citizens: according to the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in a few particular persons, they should be appointed to to be only guardians and servants of the laws. » To put it plainly, Aristotle advocated the rule of law. The Roman Empire also made similar arguments for the rule of law. The Roman statesman Cicero once said, “We all serve the laws that we may be free.” » Further evidence can be found in 7th century Islamic jurisprudence that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph. John Locke, in the second of his Two Treatises of Government (1689), emphasized the importance of governance through "laws established, promulgated, and known to the people." He compared this to governing by “arbitrary improvised decrees”[14]. Montesquieu, in his work The Spirit of Laws, made a substantial contribution to the field of the rule of law in the form of the doctrine of the separation of powers[15], particularly the separation of the judicial power from the executive power and legislative. The courts must act as defenders of the sanctity of the laws. However, the most important, widespread and popular contribution to the field of rule of law was that of Professor AV Dicey, afterthat Sir Edward Coke first proposed this term in the document. cases of prohibitions[16]AV Dicey developed it in more detail in his book “The Law of the Constitution” published in 1885. According to Professor Dicey, the rules of law contain three principles[17]:- •Supremacy of the law• Equality before the law and• The predominance of the legal spirit, the supremacy of law: this has always been the basisunderstanding of the rule of law which proposes that the law reigns over all, including the people who follow it apply. Legislators must give reasons that can be justified under the law while exercising their law-making and enforcement powers. Equality before the law: While the principle of the supremacy of the law establishes checks and balances on the government in the making and administration of law, the principle of equality before the law seeks to ensure that the law is administered and applied fairly. It is not enough to have a just law, but the law must also be applied fairly. The law cannot discriminate between people based on gender, religion, race, etc. This concept of rule of law has been codified in the Indian Constitution in Article 14 and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Preamble and Article 7. The predominance of legal spirit: including this as a condition of the rule of law, Dicey believed that it was insufficient to simply include the above two principles in the country's constitution or its other laws for the state to be one in which the principles of the state of law is respected. There must be enforcement authority and Dicey believed that this authority could be found in the courts. The courts are guarantors of the rule of law and must be both impartial and free from external influence. Judicial freedom thus becomes an important pillar of the rule of law. In modern parlance, the rule of law is now seen as a system that provides guarantees against official arbitrariness, prevents anarchy and allows individuals to plan the legal consequences of their actions. Dicey's writings on the rule of law are both influential and enduring among the legal committee, particularly judges and legal practitioners.[18] In 1959, around 200 jurists from around the world met in Delhi and discussed at length the fundamental principle of the rule of law.[19] In what is called the "Delhi Declaration", they declared that the rule of law implies certain rights and freedoms, that it implies an independent judiciary, and that it implies social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to dignity human[20]. The rule of law in India India has adopted the common law system which owes its origins mainly to British jurisprudence.[21] British jurisprudence, for its part, is based on the “rule of law”[22]. India has enshrined the rule of law in its constitution from the very beginning. In the epoch-making case of KeshavnandaBharti v. State of Kerela [23], the court held that the rule of law is part of the basic structure of the constitution and is therefore immune from powers government amendment. Dicey always maintained that there was no need for written laws to control government and was of the opinion that natural law and the rule of law would be sufficient to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive . India, while adhering to natural law, has codified certain laws to keep an eye on executive arbitrariness.[24] In India, the constitution reigns supreme. Under this system, the rule of law extends to the entire area of ​​administration and every organ of state is governed by the rule of law. Article 13 of the Constitution statesthat any law not in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution will be invalid. This strengthens the position of the constitution as the supreme law of the land. It is the supreme legal document from which all other laws in the land derive their power. Equality before the law, an idea of ​​which Professor Dicey was a staunch advocate and also proposed as one of the three principles of the rule of law, also finds a place in the Indian Constitution under Article 14. In addition, the preamble to the Indian constitution enshrines the values ​​of Justice, Liberty and Equality. Article 21, perhaps the most striking example of the rule of law, provides that no person shall be deprived of his or her right to life and personal liberty, except as provided by law. In its role as protector of the law of the land, the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in upholding, propagating and advancing the rule of law. Over the last 70 years, the issue of rule of law in the Indian context has repeatedly taken center stage. By adopting a positive approach and a flexible approach in interpreting the law, they ensured that the rule of law was adopted, not just on paper, but in spirit and practice throughout the country . In the case of Sukhdev v. Bhagatram[25], the court observed as follows: “Whatever the concept of rule of law may be, whether it is the meaning given by Dicey in his “The Law of the Constitution » or the definition given by Hayek in his "Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of liberty" or the presentation presented by Harry Jones in his "The Rule of Law and the Welfare State", there is, as Mathew points out , J., in his article on "The Welfare State, the Rule of Law and Natural Justice" in "Democracy, Equality and Liberty", "substantial agreement exists in legal thought that the great objective of the notion of the rule of law is the protection of the individual against the arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found. It is indeed unthinkable that, in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the executive government or one of its officials could exercise arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive government must be reasoned and free from arbitrariness. This is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimum. » The essence of the rule of law is that there is no arbitrary power and if such exercise takes place, citizens are free to approach the courts which, in their capacity, review administrative action and take severe action in the event of excess of power[26]. . Anything that escapes the law is ultravires[27]. A commonplace principle of common law countries that the executive must act in accordance with the law and not according to its own decree is still in force in India thanks to the judiciary.[28] The supervisory power of the judiciary also derives from the concept of the rule of law. Over the years, several laws have been struck down because they violated the spirit of the Indian Constitution, of which the rule of law is an essential part.[29] The judiciary ensures that the executive or legislature does not exceed its limits and thus keeps alive the system of checks and balances.[30] However, there is a fine line between judicial review and judicial activism and it is the latter that most often amounts to judicial overreach and a violation of the separation of powers between the wings of government.[31] In India, there have been several cases of judicial overreach. A classic example of this is the recent case of the obligation for cinemas to play the national anthem. In what was a petition regarding the commercial exploitation of the national anthem, the CJI observed: "a time has come, the citizens of the country must realize that they live.