LAW

INTRODUCTION
The expression 'Rule of Law' is in the nature more of a concept than a legal phrase. The
expression 'rule of law' has been derived from the French phrase 'la principle de tegalite' i.e., a
Government based on the principles of law. If the word 'law' is meant to indicate the force or
tendency to make for righteousness, 'rule of law' is conceived to be not only a fair and honest
administration of justice in the courts, but as investing justice as the supreme human good. As an
ex-Attorney General Mr. Mannigham Buller once pointed out, the rule of law is the reverse of
tyranny, a state of affairs in which there are legal barriers to governmental arbitrariness, and
legal safeguards for the protection of the individual are available. In simple words, the term 'rule
of law ' indicates the state of affairs in a country where, in main, the law rules. Law may be taken
to mean mainly a rule or principle which governs the external actions of the human beings and
,vhich is recognized and applied by the State in the administration of justice. The object of the
l.rn is to maintain public order by compelling indi viduals by defining the powers of the
Government. its servants and its institutions and by compelling them to exercise their powers
within legal limits. The law, thus, provides protection to individuals from unlawful action of the
Government and its officials by compelling them to exercise their power in accordance with law.

According to a western jurist Mr. Harrop A. Freeman the rule of law corresponds to the concept
of Dharma. Ancient Hindu jurists have laid down as a cardinal principle that the conduct of
anyone must conform to Dharma, which may be defined as right conduct. The various Hindu
Legal Codes were fashioned by spiritually minded personalities styled Rishis, who had viewed
every problem with objectivity and detachment, not owing allegiance to any human ruler or
institution. Even the Gods could not transgress the commands of the Sastras; Sri Krishna in His
Bhagavat Gita has equated everything including the Absolute with Himself; nevertheless, He
says that for the solution of all question, the law is supreme: 'Tasmat Sastram Pramanam' ..

In India, concept of Rule of Law can be traced to Upnishads. It provides - Law is the King of
Kings. It is more powerful and rigid than they (Kings). There is nothing higher than law. By its
powers, the weak shall prevail over the strong and justice shall triumph.

ORIGIN AND MEANING

The rule of law has a number of different meaning and corollaries. Its primary meaning is that
everything must be done according to law. Applied to the powers of Government, this requires

1
 that every Government authority which does some act which would otherwise be a wrong (such
as taking a man's land), or which infringes a man's liberty (as by refusing him planning
permission), must be able to justify its action as authorized by law - and in nearly every case this
will mean authorized directly or indirectly by Act of Parliament.

The Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other such concepts, is not
capable of any exact definition . This however, does not mean that there is no agreement on the
basic values which it represents. The term Rule of Law is used in contradistinction to 'rule of
man' and 'rule according to law' . Even in the most autocratic forms of government there are
some laws according to which the powers of the government are exercised but it does not mean
that there is the Rule of Law. Therefore, Rule of Law means that the law rules, which is based on
the principles of freedom, equality, non-discrimination , fraternity, accountability and non-
arbitrariness and is certain, regular and predictable. In thi s sense ·the Rule of Law' is an ideal. It
is a modern name for natural law. In history, man has al ways appealed to something higher than
that which is his own creation. In jurisprudence, Romans called it 'jus naturale ', Mediaevalists
called it the 'Law of God', Hobbes, Locke and Roussueau called it ' social contract' or 'natural
law' and the modern man calls it 'Rule of Law'. Thus, in monarchy, the concept of law
developed to control the exercise of arbitrary powers of the monarchs who claimed divine
powers to rule. In a democracy, the concept has assumed different dimension and means that the
holders of public powers must be able to justify publically that the exercise of power is legally
valid and socially just.

'Rule of Law' is the supreme manifestation of human civilization and culture and is a new
'lingua franca' of global moral thought. It is an eternal value of constitutionalism and an inherent
attribute of democracy and good governance. 'Rule of Law' has been originated by Sir Edward
Coke. He expressed the view that the King must be under God and law and thus vindicated the
supremacy of law over the pretensions of the executives. It was originated with the object to
exclude the arbitrary authority of the Government and to protect the individual from unlawful
action of the Government. Later on, this concept (Rule of Law) was developed and established
by A .V. Dicey.

2
According to Dicey, Rule of Law has three meanings.

First of Dicey' s three meanin gs of the Rule of Law: Absence of Arbitrary Power
The rule of law means in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of
regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of
arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the
government. .... a man may be punished for the breach of law, but he can be punished for
nothing else.

This interpretation conveyed that no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer
in body or goods, except for a distinct breach of law established ,in ordinary legal manner
before the ordinary courts of the land. In this sense, the rule of law is contrasted with the
system of government based on the exercise by person in authority of wide arbitrary
powers of constraint.

Second meanin g of th e Rule of Law: Subjection of Officials to the Ordinary Courts

The rule of law m_eans, again, equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes
to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts.
In this sense the rule of law conveys that no man is above the law; that officials like
private citizens are under a duty to obey the same law; and (though this does not
necessarily follow) that there are no administrative courts to which are referred claims by
the citizen against the State or its officials.

Third meaning of the Rule of Law: Constitution the result of the ordinary Law of the
Land
Finally the rule of law as expounded by Dicey means -

That with us the law of the constitution, the rules which in foreign countries naturally
form part cf a constitution code, are not the source but the consequence of the rights of
individuals, as defined and enforced by the courts, that, in short, the principles of private
law have with us been by the action of the courts and Parliament so extended as to
determine the position of the Crown and of its servants; thus the constitution is the result
of the ordinary law of the land.

The concept of rule of law, in modem age, does not oppose the practice of conferring
discretionary powers upon the government but on the other hand emphasizes on spelling out the

3
 . bound by the ordinary laws of land
manner of their exercise. It also ensure th at every man IS b h d"
. . th . t ri hts are safeguards y t e or mary
whether he be private citizen or a pubhc officer, at pnva e g
laws of the land.

Thus, the rule of law signifies that nobody 1s . depnve. d 0 f his rights and liberties by an
. . . aut hont1es
administrative action; that the admm1strat1ve . • per,orm
.-: their functions according to law
. .
and not arbitrarily; that the laws of the land are not uncons 1I·t u1·ion al and oppressive·' that the
supremacy of courts is upheld and judicial control of administrative action is fully secured.

In short, Rule of law indicates the state of affairs in a country where there is absence of arbitrary
power, where law is observed by everyone including the Government and its officers, where the
action of the administration is backed by law, where every man is equal before law and assured
that he will not be punished except for violation of law, where cases relating to violation law or
disputes as to rights and duties arc decided hy impartial and independent Courts or Tribunals. A
slight departure based on law· will not alter the pos.ition , i.e., some privileges created in favour of
certain persons, class of persons, bodies or authorities including the Government by a law will
not be taken as a violation of the rule of law. The word "law" means a valid law. In context of
India and U.S.A., the law, to be valid law, must have been enacted in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution. A law which contravenes any of the provisions of the Constitution
is declared to be void by the Court. The position is different in England. In England, there is
supremacy of Parliament and therefore the law made by Parliament cannot be declared void even
if it violates the principles of Rule oflaw.

RULE OF LAW UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

In India, the meaning of rule of law has been much expanded. It is regarded as a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution and, therefore, it cannot be abrogated or destroyed even by the
Parliament. It is also regarded as part of natural justice. The concept of 'rule of law' is used in
contradiction of the rule of man. In the system in which rule of law prevails it is the law that
rules even through the instrumentality of man. Arbitrary action is completely antithesis of the
rule of law. Every organ of the State under the Constitution of India is regarded and controlled
by the rule of law. Absence of arbitrary power has been held to be the first essential of rule of
law. The rule of law requires that the discretion conferred upon the executive authorities must be
controlled within clearly defined limits. The rule of law permeates the entire fabric of the

4
Constitution of India and it forms one of its basic features . Its postulate is intelligence without
passion and reason free from desire. Whenever we find arbitrarine~s or unreasonableness, there
is denial of the rule of law.

Justice Bhagwati has taken much wide meaning of the concept 'rule of law' by saying, " Law, in
the context of Rule of Law, does not mean any law enacted by legislative authority, however
arbitrary despotic it may be, otherwise even in dictatorship it would possible to say that there is
rule of law because every law made by the dictator, howsoever arbitrary and unreasonable, has to
be obeyed and every action has to be taken in conformity with such law. In such a case too even
where the political set up is dictatorial, it is the law that governs the relationship between men
and men and between · men and the State, but still it is not the rule of law as understood in
modem jurisprudenc e because in jurisprudential terms, the law itself in such a case be in g an
emanation from the abso lut e w ill o r th e di ctator, it is in efl ect and substance th e rul e o f man and
not of law which preva il s in such a situation. In Buchan Singh v. State of P11njah , !AIR 19 82 SC
1325] the Supreme Court observed that what is necessary element of rule of law is that law must
not be arbitrary or irrational and must satisfy the test of reason and the democratic form of policy
seeks to ensure this element by making the framers of the law accountable to the people."

The Indian Constitution is conceived on the principle that for India, the Constitution and no
other, is the supreme factor in the country. In England, the Parliament is supreme, in America,
the President, in France, the Premier and in the Soviet Union , the Communist Party Presidium.
But in India, the Constitution is supreme. Everything done in this country, by the executive, the
legislative or judiciary is subject to the Constitution. In fact , the oath for the President and the
other dignitaries and the judges, is taken in the name of the Constitution. Thus, in Golaknath v.
State of Punjab, [AIR 1967 SC 1943] it was observed that "rule of law under the Constitution
serves the needs of people without undoubtedly infringing their rights. It recognizes the social
reality and tries to adjust itself from time to time avoiding authoritarian path. Ru le of law under
the Constitution has the glorious content. It embodies the concept of law evolved over the
centuries."

In India, the Constitution has been made the supreme law of the country. The Constitution of
India makes provisions not only for the establishment of the majesty of law but also for its

5
preservation. These provisions under the Ind.ian constitution relating to the rule of law are
explained as follows:-

Provisions in favour of Rule of Law under Indian Constitution

The following provisions of the Constitution of India establish firmly the Rule of law in the
country:-

1. The Preamble envisages social, economic and political justice, equality of status and
opportunity, fraternity and dignity to the individual. Every citizen has been conferred a
bundle of rights, all of which are.justiciable as against the State. The Preamble does not
grant any power but it gives a direction and purpose to the Constitution. It outlines the
objectives of the whole Constitution. The Preamble contains the fundamentals of the
Constitution. It serves several important purposes, as for example: (i) it contains the
enacting clause whicJ1 brings the Constitution into force. (ii) it declares the great rights
and freedoms which the people of India intended to secure to all its citizens. (iii) it
declares the basic type of government and polity which is sought to be established in the
country. (iv) it throws light on the source of the Constitution, viz. the People of India.
The Preamble to the Constitution declares India to be a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular
Democratic Republic'. As to the grand objectives and socio-economic goals to achieve
which the Indian Polity has been established, these are stated in the Preamble. These are:
to secure to all its citizens social, economic and political justice; liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and opportunity, and to promote
among them fraternity so as to secure the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the Nation. The goals and objectives of the Indian Polity as stated in the
Preamble are sought to be further clarified, strengthened and concretized through the
Directive Principles of State Policy. Therefore, it is essential that the Preamble be read
along with the Directive Principles which lay down certain goals for the government to
achieve so as to maximize social welfare of the people.
2. Article 13: The Constitution of India has been made the supreme law of the country and
other laws are required to be in conformity with the Constitution . Any law which is found
in violation of any provision of the Constitution is declared invalid.
Part Ill of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental Rights. Article 13 is the
key provision as it gives teeth to the Fundamental Rights and makes them justiciable. The

6
 effect of A11icle 13 is that the Fundamental Rights cannot be infringed by the government
either by enacting a law or through administrative action. Article 13(1) of the
Constitution makes it clear that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately
before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the
provision of Part Ill dealing with the f-'undamental Rights, shall, to the extent of such
inconsistency, be void. Article 13(2) provides that the State should not make any law
which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights and any law made in contravention
of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void.
Article 13 makes the judiciary, and especially the Apex Court, as the guardian, protector
and the interpreter of the Fundamental Rights. Article 13 confers a power as well as
imposes an obligation on the courts to declare a law void if it is inconsistent with the
Fundamental Right.
3. Article 14: Article 14 or the Constitution of India provides for equality before the law
and of the equal protection of the Im-vs. According to Article 14, the State shall not deny
to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory
of India.
'Equality before law' implies the absence of any special privilege in favour of any
individual. It ensures that all are equal before the law. The doctrine of equality before law
is a necessary corollary of the Rule of Law which pervades the Indian Constitution.
Equal protection of law implies equal protection of all alike in the same situation and
under like circumstances. The aim of both the concepts is equal justice. Article 14 forbids
class legislation but it does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds
of distinction. The importance of the doctrine of reasonable classification should be
examined in the light of the doctrine of arbitrariness evolved by the Supreme Court.
Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action because an arbitrary action will involve
negation of equality.
Right to equality affords protection not only against discriminatory laws passed by the
Legislature but also prevents arbitrary discretion being vested in the Executive. Often
administrative authorities are given wide discretionary powers. In such conditions the
statute which confers such discretionary powers on the administrative authorities should
Jay down some guidelines or principles according to which the administrative authorities

7
 . h Id ntain clear legislative policy for which the
are to exercise them. The statute s ou co
contain a clear legislative policy or
discretion is to be exercised. If the statute does no t
. . fi d by it on the Government or the
guidelines for the exercise of the d1scret1on con erre
· · · authorities,
admm1strat1ve · Jf w1·11 be d"1scn·minatory and , therefore, against
· · the statute 1tse
Article 14 and the way in which it is applied will not be material. Equality is antithetic to
arbitrariness.
4. Article 19: Article I 9 guaranteed six Fundamental Freedoms to the citizens of India,
namely, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to form
associations or unions, freedom to move throughout the territory of India, freedom to
reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and freedom of profession,
occupation, trade or business. These various freedoms are necessary not only to promote
certain basic rights of the citizens but also certain democratic values in , and the oneness
and unity of. the country. Article 19 guarantees some of the basic, valued and natural
rights inherent in a person. The right to these freedoms is not absolute, but subject to the
reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the State. The restrictions imposed on
any of the freedoms guaranteed by Article I 9 will be valid only if the following
conditions are fulfilled:
(i) Restrictions have been imposed by the State as defined m Article I 2 of the
Constitution of India.
(ii) Restriction has been imposed by law and the law is a valid law. The executive
cannot impose the restriction without there being a law authorizing it to do so.
(iii) Restriction must be on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (2) to (6) of
Article 19.
(iv) Restriction must be reasonable.
5, Article 20: Article 20( I) provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except
for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an
offence, and shall not be subject to a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. Article 20( 1)
provides the necessary protection against an ex-post-facto law. An ex-post-facto law is a
law which imposes penalties retroactively, that is, upon acts already done, or which
increases the penalty for the past acts. Such laws are regarded as inequitable and

8
 abhorrent to the notions of justice and, therefore, there are constitutional safeguards
against such laws.
According to Article 20(2), no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same
offence more than once. Article 20(2) talks about the doctrine of double jeopardy which
has its roots in the well-established maxim, Nemo debet bis vexari, meaning that a man
must not be put twice in peril for the same offence. The principle was in existence in
India even prior to the commencement of the Constitution, but the same has now been
given the status of a constitutional, rather than a mere statutory, guarantee.
Article 20(3) makes it clear that no person accused of the offence shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself. This provision is directed against self-incrimination by an
accused . The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental canon of common-law
criminal jurisprudence. Thi s privilege enabl es the maintenance of human privacy and
observance of civilized standards in the enforcement of criminalju sticc.
6. Article 21: Article 21 guarantees to all persons (citizens or non-citizens) the right to life
and personal liberty. It provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
The expression right to life has been given very wide construction. Right to life should be
taken to mean right to live with human dignity free from exploitation. In Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation, [AIR 1986 SC 180] the Supreme Court has made it
clear that the expression "right to life" includes the right to livelihood also, but it may be
curtailed or curbed by following the just and fair procedure established by law.
The right to personal liberty has also been given wide construction. In Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, [AIR 1978 SC 579] the Supreme Court has held that the expression
"personal Liberty" enshrined in Article 21 is of widest amplitude. It includes a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a man and some of them have been
given additional protection under Article 19 and thus have been raised to the status of
distinct fundamental rights. The right to personal liberty thus includes right to travel
abroad, right to privacy, right to speedy trail.
7. Part IV of the Constitution has a positive if not a mandatory aspect. It embodies the
directions of state policy with a view to promote the welfare of the individual and the
development of his or her initiative and personality.

9
 bl concerning "justice, social, economic and
8. Article 38: It incorporates part of tI1e pream e
· d t tain and demand social welfare
political". This Article has often been relle upon sus °
measures and remind the State about the kind of society the ConSlitution expects it to
• · b t
.
create. Article .
38 envisages not only lega 1 JUsllce u soci·0 -economic justice as well.
Article 38 is supplemented by Article 39 which lays stress upon certain aspects of
economic justice.
9. Article 39: Article 39(b) and (c) are very significant constitutional provisions as they
affect the entire economic system in India. Article 39(b) and (c) relate to distribution of
ownership and control of material resources of the community. The aim of socialism is
the distribution of the material resources of the community in such a way as to subserve
the common good. A socialist state secures to its people socio-economic justice. Article
39(b) contemplates measures to secure equitable distribution of community resources.
Article 39( c) contemplates measures for preventing rnm:cntration of \\ea Ith and means of
production in a few private hands. Article 39(d) provides that the state has to ensure that
there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
10. Article 39-A: It directs the State to ensure that the operation of the legal system promote
justice, on the basis of equal opportunities and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid,
to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of
economic or other disabilities. In State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Bagaji Vashi,
[(1995) 5 SCC 730] the court observed that the State shall secure that the operation of
legal system promotes justice. It means justice according to law. In a democratic policy,
governed by rule of law, it should be the main concern of the State to have a proper legal
system.
I 1. Article 46: This Article enjoins the State to promote with special care the education and
.
economic interest of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and from all forms
of exploitation.
12. In the Manda! Commission Case, [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477
]the Supreme Court has upheld the national policy of reservation in favour of socially and
educationally backward classes but at the same time has also required identification and

10
 exclusion of creamy layer for extension of the reach of Rule of Law to the disadvantaged
section of people.
13. The judiciary is independent of the executive. [Article 50]
14. President is required by the oath of his office to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution.
15. The executive power and the legislative powers have to be exercised in accordance with
the Constitution vide Articles 245 and 256.
16. Article 265: This Article embodies an important constitutional principle that no tax shall
be levied or collected except under the authority of law. The term 'law' in this article
means statute law i.e. an Act of the legislature. Accordingly, no levy can be imposed
either by executive action or by the resolution of a House. The expression 'authority of
law' clearly implies that the procedure for imposing the liability to pay a tax has to be
strictly complied with.
17. Article 300: It provides that the Union of India or a State may sue or be sued in relation
to their respective affairs.
18. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
of law. A person cannot be deprived of his property merely by the executive order or
executive direction.
19. Article 301 enacts the general rule that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the
territory of India shall be free. The freedom declared by Article 30 I may be defined as a
right to free movement of persons or things, tangible or intangible, commercial or non-
commercial, unobstructed by barriers, inter-State or intra-State or any other impediments
operating as such barriers. The object of this Article is to break down the border barriers
between the constituent States and to make the entire territory of the country as one unit
with a view to encouraging trade and commerce in the country.
20. Article 311: This article provides restrictions on the prerogative of dismissal at pleasure.
It lays that no member of a civil services or holding a civil post can be dismissed or
removed by any authority subordinate to the authority by which he was appointed. The
other safeguard which it affords to a civil servant is that he shall not be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the

11
 . able O ortunity of being heard in respect of those
charges against him and given a reason PP
charges.

Provisions against the Rule of Law under Indian Constitution . . .

• f nder the Indian Const1tut1on 1f
It is to be noted that there are a few exceptions to the ru 1e o Iaw u
. prov1s1ons
applied in a strict sense. The following . . un der the Ind"an
1 Constitution in letter do not
speak for rule of law but one may find these .m accor dance wit· h th e ru le of law in spirit if looked
into profoundly. These provisions have been discussed as under:

1
I. Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule: It was added by the Constitutional (15
Amendment) Act, 1951. It provides that none of the Acts and Regulations mentioned in
the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution shall be deemed to be void on the ground that they
are inconsistent with any of the rights conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution. However,
in Saiian Singh v. Stale if Raias1/w11. [AIR 1955 SC 8451 it was held that the validit y of
the Act, if not sawd under Article 31-13 can be examined by the Courts on merits.
2. Article 74(2): It provides that the question whether any, and if so what, advice was
tendered by the Ministers under Article 74( I) to the President shall not be inquired into in
any court. However, in R.K. Jain v. Union of India, [AIR 1993 SC 1769] it has been held
that immunity from disclosure to courts is restricted to the actual advice tendered to the
President. The rest of the file and all the records forming part thereof are open to in
camera inspection by the Court.
3. Articles 105 and 194: Article I05 defines parliamentary privileges of both Houses of
Parliament and of their members and committees. Article 194 is an exact reproduction of
Article I 05 and deals with the State Legislatures and their members and committees. To
enable Parliament to discharge its functions properly the Constitution confers on each
member of the House certain rights and immunities, and also certai:i rights and
immunities and powers on each House collectively.
4. Article 121 provides that no discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the
conduct of any judge of the Supreme Court or of the High Court in discharge of his duties
except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal
of the judge. This provision amounts to an absolute constitutional prohibition. The object
of this Article is to ensure the independence of Judiciary.

12
5. Article 122 lays down that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be called
in question in any Court on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The
Courts cannot issue a writ against the Speaker from presiding over a meeting of the
House [Hemachandra Sen Gupta v. The Speaker, AIR 1956 Cal. 378] or stop the passage
of a Bill [Chhotey Lal v. State of UP., AIR 1951 All. 258].
6. Article 358: It provides for suspension of the six freedoms guaranteed to the citizens by
Article 19 of the Constitution while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation.
However, as soon as Proclamation of Emergency ceases, Article 19 automatically comes
into life. Also, Article 358 will only protect emergency laws from being challenged in a
court of law and not other laws which are not related to the emergency.
7. Article 359: It empowers the President to suspend the right to enforce fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part Ill of the Constitution except Articles 20 and 21. Thus. in reality the
rights are not suspended. but the citizens are deprived of their right to move any court for
their enforcement. The said rights are theoretically alive. The right to seek remedy 1s
suspended.
8. According to Article 361, the President or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State shall
not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties
of his office or any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and
performance of those powers and duties. Article 361 (2) provides, no criminal
proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the President of India or the Governor
of a State in any court during his term of office. According to Article 361 (3), no process
for the arrest or imprisonment of the President of India or the Governor of a State shall be
issued by any court during his term of office. According to Article 361(4), no civil
proceedings in which the relief is claimed against the President or the Governor of a State
shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or
purported to be done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered
upon his office as President or as Governor until the expiration of two months next after
notice in writing has been delivered to the President or the Governor, as the case may be,
or left to his office stating the nature of the proceedings, the course of action therefore,
the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are
to be instituted and the relief which he claims.

13
 • "d d th t the conduct of the President may be brought under .
However 1t has been prov1 e a
· "b 1 b dy appointed or designated by either House of
review by any court, tn una or o
· · · · h d Article 61 provided further that this
Parliament for the mvest1gat1on of a c arge un er ,
shall not restrict right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings againS t the

Government of a State.

Preservation and Enforcement of Rule of Law

The Constitution of India does not only establish the rule of law, but also provides for its
protection and enforcement. The judiciary has been made the guardian and protector of the
Constitution.

Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
except the Supreme Court within the territory of India. Article 142 provides that the Supreme
Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decrees or make such orders as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Any decree so
passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as
may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and until provision in that behalf is
so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. Subject to the provisions of
any law made in this behalf, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of
India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of
any person, the discovery or production of any document or the investigation or punishment of
any contempt of itself. Article I 44 makes it clear that all authorities (civil or judicial) in the
territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The authorities which do not comply with
its direction shall be liable for contempt of Court.

For the enforcement of the supremacy of the Constitution which is the supreme law of the
country, the High Court and the Supreme Court have been conferred with the power of judicial
review. The jurisdiction under Articles 32, 136, 226 and 227 cannot be ~xcluded even by the
constitutional amendment. The judicial review is the part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Article 32 makes it clear that in case of infringement of the Fundamental Rights,
the right to move the Supreme Court is itself a Fundamental Right. Article 226 empowers the
High Court to issue orders, writs, etc. for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights and
also for the enforcement of any other right. Under Article 32 the Supreme Court can issue orders,

14
writs, etc. only for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights. In addition, the contempt
power of the Supreme Court and High Court has also played important role in the enforcement of
the rule of law in the country. The contempt jurisdiction is very wide and inherent in the Courts
ofrecord.

RULE OF LAW AND JUDICIAL ATTITUDE

The basic concept of the Rule of Law is not well-defined legal concept. In K. T Plantation (P)
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, [2011 (9) SCC I] it was held that the rule of law as a principle
contains no explicit substantive component like eminent domain but has many shades and colors.

In an early case S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, [AIR 1967 SC 1427] the Supreme Court
portrayed the essentials of rule of law in a very lucid manner. It observed: "The absence of
arbitrary power is the lirst essential of the r11lc of Im, upon which our whole constitutional
system is based. In a system governed hy rule of law. Jisc:rction when conferred upon executive
authorities must be continued within clearly Jctincd limits. The rule of law from this point of
view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and,
in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a
decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a
decision is antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule oflaw."

The Court expressed its confidence about the existence of rule of law under our Constitution in
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, [AIR I970 SC I 50] and observed: "under our constitution the
rule of law pervades over the anti-field of administration. Every organ of the state under our
constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. The concept of our constitution would
lose its validtty if the instrumentalities of the state are not charged with the duty of discharging
their function in a fair and just manner."

However, in A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivakanl Shukla, [AIR I976 SC 1207] popularly known as
Habeas Corpus case, wherein an attempt was made to challenge the detention orders during the
Emergency on the ground that it violates the principles of the Rule of Law as the "obligation to
act in accordance with the rule of law ... is a central feature of our constitutional system and is a
basic feature of the Constitution". Though the contention did not succeed and some justices even
went on to suggest that during an emergency, the emergency provisions themselves constitute the

15
 ., t order to the effect that the doors of the
Rule of Law Therefore, even in spite of the un1ortuna e . .
· h detenues it is gratifying to note that the
court during an emergency are completely shut or t e '
concept of Rule of Law can be used as a legal concept.
Ltd Delhi v Union of India, [AIR 1977
The Delhi High Court in Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exe hange ·• ·
• th romulgation of emergency and
Del 132) upheld the sanctity of the rule of law even durmg e P
. .h h d 1 ration of emergency nor the
the suspension of the fundamental nghts . Nett er t e ec a
· · · f th le of law Such a declaration and
suspension of the fundamental nghts can be destructive o e ru . ·
the consequential suspension of the fundamental right combined with other conSt itutional
changes in their wake, to an extent, abridged the rule of law but all these do not add up to an
abrogation of it. The court observed "Arbitrary executive action is justiciable independently of
any of th e fundamental rights because of the concept of the rule of law that every executive
action mu st have legal sanction behind it".

H.L. Anand , .I . observed : "the express ion ' rul e of law' is used in contradistinction of the rul e o f
man . In the system in which rule of law prevail s it is the law that rules even though through the
instrumentality of man, and not the man independently of or above the law. In such a system all
executive actions must be based on legal sanction and there is no place for executive action that
springs from individual whim, malice or caprice. Rule of law, therefore, has a built in safeguard
against arbitrary action. Arbitrary action is complete anti-thesis of the rule oflaw"

Violation of principle of natural justice may undermine the rule of law resulting in arbitrariness,
unreasonable etc. but such violations may not undermine rule of law so as to invalidate a statute.
Violations must be such a serious nature which undermines the very basic structure of our
constitution and our democratic principles [K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State ofKarnataka, 2011

(9) sec t].

Therefore, in Motilal v. State of UP., [AIR 1951 All. 257 (F.B.)) it was affirmed that the state
could run the business of road transport, though not specifically authorized by the legislature,
although a contrary view was put forward by a single dissenting judge. He said that the executive
could exercise only such powers as were granted to it by the Constitution or by the legislature
and not otherwise; otherwise, he maintained, the rule of law would be subverted.

16
Also, in R.K. Kapur v. State of Punjab, [( 1955) 2 M.L.J. 59 (S.C.)] the Supreme Court has
upheld a monopoly for the printing and publication of school text books exercised by a
notification by the government. The Indian Constitution provides for the state carrying on trade
or business, even if it would cut across the individual citizen's right to carry on trade and
business under Article 19( I)(g), and also under the general right of freedom of trade conferred by
Article 30 I of the Constitution . But in either case, it could be effected only by 'law' which of
course means legisl ation. In this case, however, no legislative sanction had been obtained: but it
was pointed out that funds for this venture had been made available by the Appropriate Act.

The Supreme Court emphasized the im portance of the rule of law in the context of Indian
Constituti on in the case of State of Bihar v. Sonawati Kumari [AIR 1961 SC 221]. The court
observed: ·'it is the essence of the rul e of la w that every authority within the state including the
executi ve government should consider it se lr bound by and obey the law .. .... "vhen the stale govt.
obeys the law or gives effect to an order of the court passed against. ii is not doing an ything
which detracts from its dignity, but rather invests the law and the courts with the dignity which
are their due, which enhances the prestige of the executive govt. itself, in a democratic set up."

The Supreme Court rightly observed in Som Raj v. State of Haryana [(1990) 2 SCC 653] that the
absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of Rule of Law upon which whole constitutional
edifice is based. If the discretion is exercised without any principle or without any rule, it is a
situation amounting to the antithesis of Rule of Law.

In the opin ion of some of the judges constituting the majority in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of
Kera/a, [AIR 1973 SC 1461] the Rule of Law was considered as an "aspect of the doctrine of
basic structure of the Constitution, which even the plenary power of Parliament cannot reach to

amend".

Thus, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, [AIR 1975 SC 2299] in which the Supreme Court
invalidated clause (4) of Article 329-A, inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (Thirty-
ninth Amendment) Act, 1975 to immunize the election dispute to the office of the Prime Minister
from any kind of judicial review, the Court held that clause (4) offends the concept of the Rule of
Law. The court held that since the validation of the Prime Minister's election was not by
applying any law, therefore it offends the Rule of Law. The court further held that clause (4) of

17
 ervasiveness of the spirit of law
th R I O f L w which postulates t he P
Article 329-A offended e u e a . b't ry official action in
throughout the whole range of government .
10 th e sense of excluding ar I ra .
. . . . f
any sphere. The court observed that the JUnsd1ct10n o t e Ph Su reme Court to try a case on merits
. .
. postu 1ates 0 f the Rule of Law and of Justice
cannot be taken away without injury to the basic
within a politically democratic constitutional structure.

It has also been held in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [AIR 1970 SC 150] that for a democratic
government, rule of law is a basic requirement. The rule of law runs like a golden thread through
every provision of the Constitution and indisputably constitutes one of its basic features, which
requires that every organ of the state must act within the confines of powers conferred upon it by
the Constitution and the law. The rule of law pervades over the entire field of administration.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [AIR 1982 SC 1325] the court observed that rule of law
perm eates th e entire fabric of the Indian Constitution and indeed form s one of its basic features.

Taking a cue from its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court in P. Sambamurthy v. S1u1e of A. P.
[AIR 1987 SC 357] categorically stated that Article 371-D(5)(Proviso) of the Constitution
clearly violates Rule of Law which is a basic structure and essential feature of the Constitution.
This provision had authorized the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to nullify any decision of
the Administrative Services Tribunal. Declaring the provision unconstitutional, the court
maintained that it is a basic principle of Rule of Law that the exercise of power by the executive
or by any other authority must not only conditioned by the Constitution but must also be in
accordance with law and the power of judicial review as conferred by the Constitution with a
view to ensuring that the law is observed and there is compliance with the requirement of Jaw on
the part of executive and other authorities, and it is through the power of judicial review that the
Rule of Law is maintained and every organ of the State is kept within the limits oflaw.

The Supreme Court in a case, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of
India, [AIR 1994 SC 268] reiterated that absence of arbitrariness is one of the essential of rule of
law. The court observed : "for the rule of law to be realistic there has to be rooms for
discretionary authority within the operation of rule of law, even though it has to be reduced to the
minimum extent necessary for proper governance and within the area of discretionary authority,
the existence of proper guidelines or norms of general application excludes any arbitrary exercise

18
of discretion authority. 1
. . n such a situation, the exercise of discretionary authority in its
applicat1on
. to individuals , accordmg
. to proper gu1delmes
. . and norms, further reduces the area of
discretion ' but to th at extent d1scret1onary
. . authority has to be given to make the system
workable."

In Rudraiah Raju v. State of Karna/aka, [AIR 1986 SC] it was observed that Rule of Law being
one of the basic structures of the Constitution, if it is breached, a citizen can seek redress in the
Courts. The violation of rule of Jaw is per se injurious to public interest.

DYNAMISM OF RULE OF LAW

The expansion of the rule of law in every field of administrative functioning has assigned it a
place of special significance in the Indian administrative law. The Supreme Court, in the process
of interpretati on of rule of law vis-,1-vis ope ra tion of ,1<.lmini strati ve powers, in severa l cases
emph as ized upon th e need of fa ir and just procedure, adequ ate safeguards against an y executive
encroachment on personal liberty, free legal aid to the poor and speedy trial in criminal cases as

necessary adjuncts to rule of law.

In Khatri and others v. State of Bihar, [AlR 1981 SC 928] the court emphasized upon the right to
free legal services as an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person
accused on an offence. It was held to be implicit in the guarantee of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The state is under a constitutional mandate to provide free legal aid to an accused
person who is unable to secure legal assistance on account of indigence.

In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1983 SC 378] the Supreme Court treated the letter
of Sheela Barse, a journalist complaining of custodial violence to women prisoners while
confined in police lockup in the dty of Bombay, as a petition and clearly observed that the legal
assistance to a poor or indigent accused is a sine qua non of justice and where it is not provided
injustice is likely to result and every act of injustice undeniably corrodes the foundation of
democracy and rule of law.

In Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh v. Union of India, [AIR I 982 SC 1413) the court examined the
confirmation proceeding of punishment against an army officer under section 153 of the Anny

19
A
ct, 1950 and found that there was no prov1s1on
. . for an appea I or rev1e
· w under the Act. The court
held it to be a serious lacuna, which was highly injudicious and destructive of rule of law.

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, [AIR 1982 SC 1473] the court
upholding the public interest litigations as one of the necessary corollaries of rule of law,
observed that the public interest litigation is intended to promote and vindicate public interest
which demands the violation of constitutional and legal rights of large number of people who are
poor, ignorant or in a socially and economically disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed
and un-redressed. That would be destructive of the rule of law which forms one of the essential
elements of public interest in any democratic form of government.
I . . . .
t is sometimes said that planning and welfare schemes essentially strike at rul e of law because
they affect the individual freedom and liberty in many ways. B~t rul e of law plays an effective
role by emphas izin g upon fair play and greater accountability of 1hc admin istrati on. It lays
greater emphasis upon th e principles of natu ra l justice and the rul e of spea king order in
administrative process in order to eliminate administrative arbitrariness.

Justice Bhagwati in D.C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar, [AIR 1987 SC 579] observed that
the rule of law constitutes the core of our constitution and it is the essence of the rule of law that
the exercise of the power by the State whether it be the legislative or the executive or any other
authority should be within the constitutional limitations and if any practice is adopted by the
executive which is in flagrant and systematic violation of its constitutional limitation, a member
of the public would have sufficient interest to challenge such practice by filling a writ petition
and it would be constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to entertain the writ petition and
adjudicate upon the validity of such practice.

In Chief Settlement Commis~·ioner, Punjab v. Om Prakash, [AIR 1969 SC 33] it was observed by
the Supreme Court that, "in our constitutional system, the central and most characteristic feature
is the concept of rule of law which means, in the present context, the authority of law courts to
test all administrative action by the standard of legality. The administrative or executive action
that does not meet the standard will be set aside if the aggrieved person brings the matter into
notice."

20
 In Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others, f( J 991) 4 SCC 699]
the Court observed th at 11· 1s
· necessary to take a conspectus of the constitutional provisions
· ·
concerning th e JU
· d"1c1ary
· and its
· ·independence. In interpreting the constitutional
· provisions
·· ·m th'is
nd th
area th e Court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features a e
basic st ructure of the Constitution. Rule of law is a basic feature of the Constitution which
permeates the whole of the constitutional fabric and is an integral part of the conSlitutional

st ructure. Independence of the judiciary is an essential attribute ofrule of law.

In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [AIR 1987 SC 386] the Court held that the power of
judicial review is an integral part ofour constitutional system and without it, there will be no
government of laws and the rule of law would become a teasing illusion and a promise of

unreality.

The recent judicial pronouncements exhibit a dynamic and positive approach to the concept of
rule of law by laying the need of fair play and justice in every walk of administrative action .
Judiciary has come forward to make legal remedies available for all and sundry. It takes care of
human rights against any administrative encroachment in order to uphold the dignity of man in
society. It ensures safeguards against every kind of arbitrary action of the administration.

In Union of India v. Shree Ganapati Rolling Mills (P), (2006 Guwahati HC] it was held that the
scope of an official power cannot itself be interpreted in isolation from general principles
governing the exercise of power in a constitutional democracy. Those principles apply to the
exercise of all powers and that even where the decision maker is vested with discretion, the
discretion is to be exercised in accordance with those principles. One such principle, the rule of
Jaw, contains within it number of requirements such as that power should not be arbitrarily
exercised. The rule of law above all rests upon the principle of legal certainty.

In Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another, [(I 998) I SCC 226] it was observed by
the court that it is the duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard
against erosion of the rule of law. The Court observed "however high you may be, the law is
above you. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Dr.
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CIB and Another [2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 822 SC].

21
In B.P. Singha! v. Union of India [AIR 2010 SC] the matter was relating to the doctrine of
pleasure as originally envisaged in England, a prerogative power which was unfettered. The
court held that it meant that the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time,
without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where
rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable action. (fhe
doctrine of pleasure is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily,
whimsically, or capriciously. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and
fancy of the authority, but can only be for valid reasons. In a democracy based on Rule of Law,
no authority has any unfettered and unreviewable discretion. All powers vested in all public
authorities, are intended to be used only for public good. Therefore, any order of premature
removal of a Governor will be open to judicial review.

In Epum Sudhakar v. Governmem of Andhra Pradesh, 12006 (8) SCC I6 Jl the Court held that
Ruic of Law is the basis for evaluation of all decisions. The supreme quality of the Ruic of Law
is fairness and legal certainty. The principle or legality occupies a central plan in the Rule of
Law. Every prerogative has to be the subject to the Rule of Law. That rule cannot be
compromised on the grounds of political expediency. To go by such considerations would be
subversive of the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law and it would amount to setting a
dangerous precedent. The Rule of Law principle comprises a requirement of "Government
according to law". The ethos of "Government according to law" requires the prerogative to be
exercised in a manner which is consistent with the basic principle of fairness and certainty.

In lmtiyaz Ahmad v. State of UP. and others [AIR 2012 SC] it was held that unduly long delay
in cases has the effect of bringing about blatant violation of the rule of law and adverse impact
on the common man's access to justice. A person's access to justice is a guaranteed fundamental
right under the Constitution and particularly Articlt 21. Denial of this right undermines public
confidence in the justice delivery system and incentivizes people to look for short-cuts and other
fora where they feel that justice will be done quicker. In the long run, this also weakens the
justice delivery system and poses a threat to Rule of Law. The Court reiterated that 'Access to
Justice' is vital for the Rule of Law, which by implication includes the right of access to an
Independent Judiciary. The Court held that the stay of investigation or trial for significant

22
periods of time runs . . . . · · f
counter to the principle of Rule of Law, wherein the rights and aspirat10ns o
citizens are intert wme
· d wit• h exped1t1ous
.. . of matters.
conclusion

In Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, fAIR 2010 SC] it was held that very often the
expression "Rule of Law" is used to convey the idea of a Government that is limited by law. The
expression "Rule of Law" describes a society in which Government must act in accordance with
law. A society governed by Jaw is the foundation of personal liberty. It is also the foundation of
economic development since investment will not take place in a country where rights are not
respected. It is in that sense that the expression "Rule of Law" constitutes an overarching
principle embodied in Article 21, one aspect of which is equality.

In Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana. [AIR 20 IO SC 28391 it was held that Rule of Law requires
a person to be innocent till pro ved guilty. but in u 1sc of dowry death it is not so. If the
ingredients of Section 304-13 IPC arc sa ti sfied . in th at case the Court will presume by deemed
fiction of law that the husband or the relatives complained of has caused the death.

In State of Kera/a v. Kandath Distilleries, [2013 (3) RCR (Criminal) 494 SC] it was held that
exercise of statutory discretion must be based on reasonable , grounds and cannot lapse into
arbitrariness or caprice anathema to the rule of law envisaged in Article I 4 of the Constitution.

In B. Murugan v. Secretary, The Bar Council of India, [2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 131] the college
authorities on their own fixed the minimum attendance in each subject at 80% for Law course,
however the percentage of attendance required under B.C.I was 70%. It was held that when the
position is so as per the controlling body i.e. Bar Council of India then the college authority
under the guise of achieving higher standards and excellence, is usurping the power of BCI and
insisting on certain standards beyond what is contemplated under the rules and regulations of the
controlling body. The Court held that anyone can achieve excellence in the manner as he likes ,
but, the same should be within the rule of law and if it goes beyond that, it will result in
anarchism in doing the things, which are not permissible under law.

23
CONCLUSION .
. . . f It recognizes that howsoever high
Our Const1tut1on envisages a rule of law and not a ru 1e o men.
. . All th e Constitutional functionaries must,
one may be, he is under the law and the Const1tut1on.
. . In a system gov emed by rule of law, there is
therefore, function within the constitutional limits.
. hke
nothmg . absolute or unbridled
. .
power exercisable at the wh"1ms an d fancies of the repository
of power. There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints.

Under our Constitution the Rule of Law pervades over field of administration and every organ of
the State is regulated by the Rule of Law. In a welfare State it is inevitable that jurisdiction of
administrative bodies is increasing by a rapid rate. The concept of Rule of Law would lose its
vitality if instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their
function in a fair and just manner. The Rule of Law is basic Rule of governance of any civilized
policy. The scheme of Constitution of India is based on the concept of Rule of Law. It is only
through the courts that Ruic or I.aw unfolds its contents and establishes its concept. Draconian
concept or law had its departure quite some time hack and Ruic of Law is the order of the day.

Rule of Law has no fixed or articulate connotation though the Indian courts refer to this phrase
time and again. The broad emphasis of Rule of Law is on absence of any centre of unlimited or
arbitrary power in the country, on proper structurisation and control of power, absence of
arbitrariness in the government. Rule of Law does not mean rule according to statutory law pure
and simple, because such a law may itself be harsh, inequitable, discriminatory or unjust. Rule of
law connotes some higher kind of law which is reasonable, just and non-discriminatory. Rule of
law today envisages not arbitrary power but controlled power. Constitutional values, such as
constitutionalism, absence of arbitrary power in the government, liberty of the people, an
independent judiciary etc. are imbibed in the concept of Rule of Law. Rule of law under the
Constitution serves the needs of people without undoubtedly infringing their rights. It recognizes
the social reality and tries to adjust itself from time to time avoiding authoritarian path. Rule of
law under the Constitution has the glorious content. It embodies the concept of law involved over
the centuries.

The recent judicial pronouncements exhibit a dynamic and positive approach to the concept of
rule of law by laying the need of fair play and justice in every walk of administrative action.
Judiciary has come forward to make legal remedies available for all and sundry. It ensures

24
safeguards · st
. again every kind of arbitrary action of the administration. Judicial act1v1sm as
valiant enterprise is .
seen as a part of the efforts of Constitutional Courts in India to establish rule
of law society wh · h
IC postu 1ates that no matter how high a person may be the law is always above

him. The Courts are also making efforts to link rule of law with human rights of the people. The
Courts are evolving strategy by which it can force the government not only submit to law but
also create conditions where people can develop capacities to enjoy their rights in proper and
meaningful way.

But it would be nebulous to rely on judicial decisions alone for the enforcement of individual
rights. These rights must be secured by law (which is synonymous with legislation). It must be
admini stered by an independent judiciary, with the aid of a "resolute" legal profession. The
overall requirement is that the law must he just. That is to say, the law that is administered must
not be unju s t. For i11 s1a11u:. in So111h /\ frica the judiciary is independent. as also the legal
profess ion. But they could not alleviate the shocking denial of fundamental rights to millions of
non white races.

25