Dicey Rule of Law Jurisprudence Concept

The Rule of law means that all laws apply equally to all citizens of the country and no one is above the law. Every citizen of the country has a right to approach the court irrespective of any discrimination in case laws are violated.

Dicey Definition of Rule of Law

According to A.V. Dicey, Rule of law means supremacy of law i.e. no one is above the law, opposing the influence of arbitrary power. He regarded Rule of law as the base of the British Legal System, this system is accepted even in Indian Legal System.

Dicey’s Rule of Law contains three principles

1) Supremacy of Law

2) Equality before Law: –

• Dicey stated that there must be equality before the law of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts.
• He believed that exemption of civil servants from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and providing them the special tribunals was the contradiction of equality.
• He stated any encroachment on the court’s jurisdiction bounds to endanger his rights.

3) Predominance of Legal Spirit (Judicial supremacy): –

• Dicey observed that in many countries rights such as the right to personal liberty, freedom from arrest, freedom to hold public meetings, etc. are guaranteed by a written Constitution; in England, it is not so.
• In England, those rights are the result of judicial decisions i.e. the judge make decisions or rules. Dicey’s Rule of Law has its own advantages and disadvantages. Although in this age, total absence of discretionary power is not possible. But this concept has proved to be effective to enclose administrative authorities in their limits.

 Dicey’s rule of law faces certain criticism

1) Dicey put forward individual liberty and criticized administrative discretion i.e. administrative authorities power to make decisions within the limits set by legislation, but he failed to distinguish between discretion given to public officials by a statute and the arbitrary discretion claimed by the king. If giving discretionary power to government departments and public officers is against rule of law, then rule of law cannot be made applicable to any country in the modern world. Dicey’s dislike of discretionary power was due to the fear of abuse. Thus, if discretion is opposed to the rule of law then a final Court like our Supreme Court which has discretionary power to admit or reject an appeal or application which are under article 142 of our constitution would contravene the rule of law because it possesses this power and can exercise it without assigning any reasons.

2) he dealt with the rights of individuals not with the powers of the administration.

3) Dicey did not refer to the prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari by which superior courts exercised control over administrative action and adjudication. (In article 32 and article 226 of our Indian Constitution) These writs belong to public law and have nothing to do with private law.

4) Dicey’s picture of the Englishmen protected by the Rule of Law, and the Frenchmen deprived of that protection because public authorities in France enjoyed privileges and immunities is not recognised as a distorted picture.

5) Dicey created a false opposition between ordinary law and special law and between ordinary Courts and special tribunals when he says, firstly, that the rule of law required the equality to all classes before the ordinary law of the Courts and secondly that the rule of law was inconsistent with administrative law and administrative tribunals. which he himself recognized that it may be necessary to create a body of persons for adjudicating upon the offences or the errors of civil servants as such adjudication may be more effective in enforcing official law and moreover mere presence of a well-established law for all would not serve the purpose.

6) Dicey’s dislike of discretionary power was due, first, to the fear of abuse, and, secondly, to the belief that the judicial function consists in applying settled principles of law to the facts of a case, and not in the exercise of discretionary power. Taking the second point, the exercise of discretionary power is used then and now; a large part of the work of regular courts. Thus, where an accused pleads guilty, the only question which remains is one of punishment, and here the judge has a very wide discretion. Again, if discretion is opposed to the Rule of Law, a final court with discretionary power to admit or reject an appeal or an application, would contravene the Rule of Law, and yet most final courts, including our Supreme Court possess this power. Again, the power to adjourn a case, to allow an amendment, to condone delay, to award costs are discretionary powers, and like all discretionary powers may be abused, though it is usual to provide safeguards against abuse. But the safeguards are not always effective.

7) Dicey has ignored the importance of the Codification of laws. Codification of laws is important to ensure the rights of an individual as it provides certainty, anything which is codified is certain and thus, could be followed more effectively.

Conclusion

• According to Dicey rule of law denotes the absence of arbitrary powers and the supremacy of law. No individual is above the law and cannot exercise its authority arbitrarily. Every person and authority is subjected to the law of the land.
• Secondly, everyone is equal before the law irrespective of their class and status and thus, the law treats everyone equally without any discrimination and without providing any privilege.
• Thirdly, the Courts have the power to control administrative action, thereby ensuring a system of check and balance.