Comparative Analysis Of The Rule Of Law In India And The UK

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:51:30.146Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:13:19.819Z

COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS

OF THE RULE OF LAW IN INDIA AND THE UK Pranali P Ganachari, Christ University (Deemed to be University), Pune Lavasa Campus

ABSTRACT

This article explains the growth of the Rule of Law and its role in governance, particularly in developing countries. The Rule of Law by A. V. Dicey has been based on three concepts, which are: supremacy of law, equality before law, and the spirit of law. The administrative law was developed in the UK to check executive power, particularly against bureaucracy. India followed the British, but strengthened its system with a written constitution, fundamental rights, judicial independence, and the power to strike down unconstitutional laws. At the same time, the UK follows parliamentary sovereignty. In India, the constitution is held supreme. Nevertheless, the two systems have a similarity in the belief that nobody is above the law. The Indian model, however, has a better constitutional structure to protect the rights and curtail the powers of the state.

Keywords: Rule of law, supremacy of law, equality before law, judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty, fundamental rights.

Introduction

The concept of the “Rule of Law” is a cornerstone of modern democratic society. Although the Indian Constitution does not define the term, the Indian judiciary has referred to it in its judgments. The rule of Law is a guiding principle of political morality. Its purpose is to maintain the correct balance between rights and powers, both among individuals and between individuals and the state, to ensure a free and civil society. This balance is achieved through laws that are rooted in freedom, justice, equality, and accountability. In this way, the Rule of Law creates harmony between the needs of society and the rights of individuals. The rule of law means that the law is supreme. The term ‘Rule of Law’ is derived from the French term ‘la principe de legalite’, which means ‘principle of legality’.

It refers to ‘a government based on principles of law and not of men,’ which means a government functions according to the law. 1 The idea is often credited to Edward Coke, who argued that even the king must be under God and the law. According to him, the Rule of Law rests on three key points: 1. It prevents the crown from exercising absolute power. 2. It stops the government from acting arbitrarily. 3. It safeguards individuals and their rights. The Rule of Law is a flexible and evolving concept that cannot be given an exact definition. It is often understood in contrast to the “Rule of Men” or simply “rule according to law”. At its core, the Rule of Law means that it is the law that governs society, and it rests on principles such as freedom, equality, non-discrimination, fraternity, accountability, and non-arbitrariness.

It ensures that the legal system is certain, consistent, and predictable. Broadly, the Rule of Law is understood in two ways. In a formal sense, it refers to a law-based system versus one-man rule. In an ideological sense, it refers to a fair relationship between citizens and government based on rights and accountability. 2

1 A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 329–33 (8th ed. 1915).

2 Varsha Rajora, Comparative Analysis of Rule of Law in U.K. & India, SSRN (2010),

https://ssrn. com/abstract=1533265 It's Origin The Rule of Law is the result of centuries of struggle by people to have their basic rights recognized. It is not a modern idea, it is very ancient. In 350 BC, Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle discussed it. Over time, the concept shaped how societies thought about power, justice, and governance, and many authors gave their own interpretations of it. Plato believed that the law is supreme and that no one is above it. Aristotle argued that law should be the ultimate authority in the state. In the medieval period, German customary law had emphasised the idea that the king could not do whatever he wanted, even if he had to obey the law. That means the law is above everyone. Later, John Locke Built on this idea. He said that governments must act according to the law and cannot act beyond it.

Rulers and authorities only have the powers, and they must respect people's rights while exercising the power. Dicey’s Concept of ‘Rule of Law’ Albert Venn Dicey, a British jurist and constitutional theorist, developed the modern concept of the Rule of Law in his famous book The Law of the Constitution (1885). His contribution to this principle is highly significant. Dicey explained that the Rule of Law means the supremacy of regular law over arbitrary power, and it rules out any kind of arbitrariness, prerogative, or excessive discretionary authority by the government. 3 In simple terms, everything must be done in accordance with the law. 4 He also highlighted the difference between administrative law and the Rule of Law. According to Dicey, the Rule of Law applies equally to everyone, whether it is the Prime Minister or an ordinary bank clerk.

No one is above the law, and no one should be subject to discrimination under it. The Rule of Law itself is supreme in nature. Dicey propounded this principle through three key postulates:5

3 Dicey, supra note 1, at 198.

4 M.P. Jain, Administrative Law 18 (6th ed. 2017).

5 Sahildeep Singh, A Comparative Analysis of Rule of Law in U.K. & India, 6 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Hum. 847 (2023).

1. Supremacy of Law.

2. Equality before the Law.

3. Predominance of a legal spirit.

1. Supremacy of Law- The first principle of A.V. Dicey’s Rule of Law highlights that

there should be no arbitrariness or uncontrolled use of power. In simple words, every individual must be governed by law, and nothing should happen outside it. The law is supreme and stands above the arbitrary or discretionary power. A person can only be punished for breaking the law, and not for any other reason.

2. Equality before the Law- The second principle emphasizes that all people are equal

in the eyes of the law. Everyone, regardless of their status or position, is subject to the same ordinary laws of the land, enforced by the same ordinary courts. This means no one, whether a government official or an ordinary citizen, should enjoy special privileges. Similarly, we do not need the use of special tribunals or courts to dispose of cases that involve government officials, as they should also be disposed of in the same courts as the rest.

3. Predominance of legal spirit- The third principle points out that rights such as personal

liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest have developed over time through judicial decisions in England. Individual rights are not gifts of the Constitution, but a result of ordinary law of the land, made and protected by the courts. The judiciary is the guardian of liberty, ensuring that these rights are protected. Merits and Demerits of Dicey’s concept Merits - Dicey’s idea of the Rule of Law had some clear strengths. It helped put limits on the powers of administrative authorities so they could not act without control. His theory also gave importance to administrative law and contributed to its growth. Most importantly, it provided a means to verify whether administrative actions were fair and lawful. Demerits – At the same time, Dicey’s theory had its weaknesses. Even during his time, no one agreed with it completely.

One problem was that he did not explain the difference between using discretionary power and using arbitrary power. Another issue was that he mainly focused on the individual powers and functions of administration. Rule of Law in the UK King John and his barons signed the Magna Carta, which was also known as the Great Charter. This was the first written document that limited the king’s power and made him follow the principles of good governance as determined by the barons. 6 Later, the famous lawyer A. V. Dicey said that the UK had no administrative law. But another scholar, Maitland, believed it was already growing. After some famous cases like Rice7 and Arlidge8, even Dicey had to admit that administrative law did exist. Then, Lord Hewart, in his book ‘The New Despotism’, warned people that real power was slowly shifting to government officials.

He was worried that these officials were getting too much law-making and decision-making power, which they could misuse. 9 This criticism led to the creation of the ‘Committee on Ministers’ Powers, also known as the Donoughmore Committee, which was set up in 1929. This committee aimed to examine the powers of ministers and the Crown, ensuring that Parliament’s sovereignty and the supremacy of law were protected. In 1932, when the committee presented its report, it pointed out that the executive and the Crown were misusing their powers. The committee also provided some suggestions to address these issues. It highlighted three main flaws in the administrative system:

1. Subordinate legislation was not being properly controlled.

2. Citizens were not allowed to claim tort against the Crown, and this created a big

loophole in justice.

3. Parliament had given more control over administrative decisions, and instead of courts,

these powers were delegated to special tribunals.10

6 Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Comparative Study of Rule of Law in India & U.K., 1 JUSCHOLARS 136 (2020)

7 Bd. of Educ. v. Rice, [1911] A.C. 179 (H.L.).

8 Local Gov’t Bd. v. Arlidge, [1915] A.C. 129 (H.L.).

9 M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 15 (6th ed. 2017).

10 Id. at 16.

Because of these problems, the House of Commons set up a Commission on Statutory Instruments in 1944 to keep a check on subordinate legislation. Then, in 1947, Parliament passed the Crown Proceedings Act, which allowed people to bring civil cases against the Crown. 11 In 1954, the Crichel Down Affair exposed many weaknesses in the administration. As a result, the Franks Committee was formed in 1995. The Franks committee’s report in 1957 led to the creation of the Council of Tribunals, which was responsible for improving procedures and strengthening the working of tribunals and inquiries in the country. 12 The Franks Committee concluded that there should be a proper appeal structure: first, an appeal from the initial tribunal to a higher tribunal, and then, if necessary, a referral to the courts.

By 1958, reforms had been made in areas of delegated legislation and administrative tribunals. However, other areas of administrative power remained untouched. 13 In 1961, the International Commission of Jurists published a report suggesting that the government should create an office of the Ombudsman. This report was later known as the Whyatt Report. 14 However, just appointing an ombudsman was not really enough. It had to be supported by other institutions as well. Even with these suggestions, the administrative system was still not be complete. The changes were not systematic, and they still needed stronger and coherent laws. As a result, in 1969, the Law Commission introduced reforms. It allowed people to apply to the High Court for Specific remedies in cases of misuse of power by authorities. These remedies included Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Declaration, and Injunction.

1. Citizens were not allowed to claim tort against the Crown, and this created a big

loophole in justice.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Ritvik Joshi, Comparative Analysis of Application of Rule of Law in India & U.K., 2 Int’l J. Legal Res. Analysis 10 (2022).

14 Id.

2. Parliament had given more control over administrative decisions, and instead of courts,

these powers were delegated to special tribunals. 15 Because of these problems, the House of Commons set up a Commission on Statutory Instruments in 1944 to keep a check on subordinate legislation. Then, in 1947, Parliament passed the Crown Proceedings Act, which allowed people to bring civil cases against the Crown. 16 In 1954, the Crichel Down Affair exposed many weaknesses in the administration. As a result, the Franks Committee was formed in 1995. The Franks committee’s report in 1957 led to the creation of the Council of Tribunals, which was responsible for improving procedures and strengthening the working of tribunals and inquiries in the country. 17 The Franks Committee concluded that there should be a proper appeal structure: first, an appeal from the initial tribunal to a higher tribunal, and then, if necessary, a referral to the courts.

By 1958, reforms had been made in areas of delegated legislation and administrative tribunals. However, other areas of administrative power remained untouched. In 1961, the International Commission of Jurists published a report suggesting that the government should create an office of the Ombudsman. This report was later known as the Whyatt Report. 18 However, just appointing an ombudsman was not really enough. It had to be supported by other institutions as well. Even with these suggestions, the administrative system was still not be complete. The changes were not systematic, and they still needed stronger and coherent laws. As a result, in 1969, the Law Commission introduced reforms. It allowed people to apply to the High Court for Specific remedies in cases of misuse of power by authorities. These remedies included Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Declaration, and Injunction.

15 Id. at 16.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.

In Som Raj v. State of Haryana19, the judges said that the main aim of the Rule of Law is to prevent arbitrary use of power. In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla20, the Supreme Court held that the Rule of Law is not independent of Article 21. During an Emergency, the right to life and liberty could be suspended, and people could not claim an independent rule of law In Veena Seth v. State of Bihar21, court expanded the Rule of Law to protect the poor, illiterate, and ignorant, stressing that it applies to all, not just the powerful. Differences And Similarities between the Rule of Law in India and the UK In the UK, A. V. Dicey provided the principle of the Rule of Law in 1885. In the British system, it implies that there is no person above the law, all of them are equal in the eyes of the law, laws should be applied equally, judges are independent, and the government's powers are limited.

As no written Constitution or formal bill of rights exists in the UK, the Parliament is supreme, and can even override individual rights. The Rule of Law there serves a primary purpose of checking the officials and avoiding arbitrary actions. In India, the Rule of Law extends beyond that of Dicey. It not only restrains the government authority but also safeguards the essential rights, enhances equality, and guarantees the independence of the judiciary. Even the Parliament in India must follow the law. The courts can nullify the laws that violate fundamental rights. The Rule of Law is flexible. Judicial review is a fundamental feature and cannot be changed. India and the UK are both countries that share the same principle that no person is superior to the law and that all people are equal in front of it.

However, the Rule of Law in India has a significantly stronger constitutional base that guarantees justice, equality, and human rights, and a firm judicial control over the legislative and executive branches. The Rule of Law in the UK, on the one hand, is informal and develops over time based on the laws. At the same time, the Rule of Law in India is more formal and guarantees justice, equality,

19 Som Raj v. State of Haryana, (1990) A.I.R. S.C. 1176.

20 A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) A.I.R. S.C. 1207.

21 Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, (1983) A.I.R. S.C. 339.

and democracy. Conclusion The idea of the Rule of Law was first developed as a safeguard against the arbitrary actions of rulers and administrators. A. V. Dicey explained it in an idealistic way, saying justice must come through rules made by law, not through the personal will of men. For a developing nation, the Rule of Law is essential to prevent misuse of power. However, the Indian approach to the Rule of Law differs somewhat from Dicey’s. In India, the Rule of Law is not just about blindly obeying laws, but it means creating and maintaining a democratic order. Laws must punish those who violate constitutional morality and ensure fairness. Each country must interpret and shape the Rule of Law according to its social and political conditions.

The goal of the Rule of Law in India is the overall development and dignity of individuals, giving them the chance to grow without arbitrary interference by the administration. Efforts must be made if there's a miscarriage of justice. The administration and judiciary must also work to rebuild people’s trust in the system.