The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and that it can enforce by imposing sanctions The author can be contacted at: shivaraj@legalserviceindia.com As we have seen above, the British colonialists introduced arbitrary laws, and that is why they have been challenged by historians on this basis: It is believed that it was ____ that introduced the concept of the rule of law in India. Claim (A) The Akhil Bhartiya Kisan Sabha succeeded in organizing Indian peasants to fight against British rule at the national level. “We are in holy orders and recognize only one law, the law of Dharma, the law of life, which includes, preserves and unites all the activities of life. Sankaracharya Abstract: The rule of law is a common aspiration proclaimed by international organizations and national governments as a prerequisite for acceptable modern governance, but in India it was only under British rule that the concept of “rule of law” was implanted in the Dharma-ruled country. Basically, Indians are very practical, have never attached undue importance to the dead letter of the law, they have adhered to the living norms of the “Dharma”. Unfortunately, due to the influence of English education, the so-called scholarly ruler of independent India could not have access to the high ideals of their ancestors who ruled over the administration of justice in the period before the invasion, that is, between 300 and 1200 AD. The implication of this development is that India`s constitution is essentially based on Western ideas, it fails to remain social. Political, cultural, moral and spiritual ethos of peoples. Today, in India, the “rule of law” is about to lose its basis as a powerful norm of social order, because it cannot be “the government of law” that can govern the country, but the “government of the wise” that runs the country, “the rule of law has failed to achieve equality in a pluralistic society like India, it failed for the reason that most benevolent laws can be executed in the most tyrannical way, the rule in India has failed to establish trust among the people even after nearly 300 years of rule in this country, still more than 70% of cases resolved outside the courts.

Today, we see discontent between people and the justice system and a large number of people because they do not get justice or, where it is done, it comes too late. The problem of corruption in the country`s judiciary, politics and bureaucrats has exposed the shortcomings of the “rule of law”. Problem of economic crime, fraud, “financing of politics”, by which the capitalist influenced the legislative power and thus plundered the resources of the country. Given these unhealthy developments that hinder the nation`s growth, the purpose of this article is to assess the relevance of the “rule of law” in India and deconstruct the concept of the “rule of law”. It is about analyzing some of the weaknesses of the idea of building a better legal system for the Indian people based on their own legal thinking. The rule of law has a long normative history, privileging it as the first contribution of Euro-American liberal political theory. Although there is no consensus on when the rule of law emerged, it is believed that the two fundamental principles of the rule of law have existed since ancient times: those in power should not make the laws (the separation of powers), and all people (including those in power) should be bound by the laws. This thought was not exclusively related to religious belief. A more secular approach to the rule of law was adopted by Socrates, who, convicted by the Athens grand jury for bribing young people with his teachings, chose to accept the death penalty despite the possibility of fleeing in order to demonstrate his allegiance to the superiority of the rule of law. Later Plato, who said: “Where the law is subject to another authority and has no authority of its own, the collapse of the state is not far away, in my opinion, but if the law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise, and people enjoy all the blessings that all the gods pour out on a state.” This statement, later considered a source of the rule of law, was considered by Aristotle in politics to be “the rule of law is preferable to that of any individual,” and it was Professor A.V. Dicey who developed a modern concept of the rule of law in his Introduction to the Study of Constitutional Law (1885). This so-called noble ideal of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence did not take much time to devour Britten`s colonies, the same is true in the case of India, although the British realized that there was a legal system before their arrival, but gradually succeeded in implanting their legal system.

The concept of the rule of law in the 19th and 20th centuries gained much prestige, making it not only accepted in England and its colonies, but also becoming the international standard. After independence in India The rule of law is considered the foundation of the legal system, “rule of law” is the basic rule of governance of any civilized democratic regime. Our constitutional system is based on the concept of the rule of law that we have adopted and adopted. Everyone, whether individual or collective, is undoubtedly under the supremacy of the law. No matter who the person is, no matter how high they are, no matter how powerful and wealthy they are. In order to achieve the rule of law, the Constitution assigned a special task to the country`s judiciary. It is only through the courts that the rule of law unfolds its content and justifies its concept. As I have already explained, although the concept of the rule of law has been accepted in India, it has not achieved the objectives for which it was adopted, although the judiciary confirms it as a constitutional norm, never bears satisfactory fruit.

Let`s analyze the importance and implications of the rule of law since its inception in India. II. Meaning of the Term “Rule of Law” The founder of the modern “rule of law,” A.V. Dicey, believed that there were two principles inherent in the uncodified British constitution. The first and most important principle was the “sovereignty or supremacy of parliament”. The second principle that tempers the first is the “rule of law.” Dicey thus saw the rule of law as a limitation (but not the ultimate control) of the theoretically unlimited power of the state over the individual. For him, the rule of law arose from the existing common law over the years (and therefore did not need to be codified in a written constitution). For Dicey, the rule of law had three fundamental characteristics: first, that no one should be punished except for breaking the law, which should be safe and forward-looking to guide people`s actions and actions and not allow them to be punished after the fact.

He believed that discretion would lead to arbitrariness. Second, that no one should be above the law and that all classes should be equally subject to the law. Third, the rule of law must not be based on a written constitution, but on the common law, which he describes as the supremacy of the spirit of law as the foundation of constitutional law in each country. However, the third characteristic has not been made possible in India by the adoption of an essentially foreign constitution. In this regard, not only India, but many countries have adopted a constitution based not on their indigenous legal system, but on the basis of Western ideals of the 19th and 20th centuries. The set of three principles, namely (a) the rule of law, (b) equality before the law and equal protection of the law, and (3) the predominance of the legal spirit where there is no law superior to the rights of the individual as determined by the courts, are the three components of the “rule of law in the strict sense” or the “thin notion of the rule of law”. In modern times, the rule of law has been expanded to such an extent that it does not allow even a scant reflection on socialist “normative concepts of the rule of law”. It ignores the possibility that there have ever been other constitutional traditions of thought: for example, pre-colonial traditions, those shaped by the revolt against the Old Kingdom, or the non-mimetic contributions of the proud judiciary in some “developing societies.” A “thick” or “broader” conception of the rule of law involves theories of “good”, “right” and “just” in relation to the nature, content and effects of law. Nowadays, however, the rule of law is becoming transnational or global.

It is no longer a limited concept, but a global concept.