“The rule of law” term is vivid, unlike its definition. Many jurists, judges, and research scholars have made efforts in locating the true contours of the concept of rule of law but given the fact that it evolves in accordance with the sociocultural context of a given territory, has rendered its definition almost impractical. This research paper is substantially oriented to pin down factors responsible for Darwinism of the rule of law in the U.K. and India, considering their historical and social-cultural context. That, how the concept of the rule of law has shaped the legal systems of the U.K. and India. It is quite an unfeasible task to discern who has the perfect compliance to the concept of the rule of law; rather, looking into the substantial compliance to the rule of law would be more productive. This research paper aims to critically compare the existence and productivity of the rule of law within the legal systems of both nations and how these two legal regimes have been proficient in enhancing and delivering the ice to the people by officially recognising their Fundamental rights and liberties, thus, shaping the contours of the concept behind the term “rule of law”. The judiciary retains substantial credit for giving meaning and real existence to the concept of the rule of law. As far as the credits for the concept of the rule of law are concerned, the researcher has tried to break the fallacy that A.V. Dicey has given the concept of the rule of law. And the concept of the rule of law is far from being a final product; it is still a “work in progress” for the very reason that with the change in time, the rule of law too donned characterised itself as dynamic and it will keep up with changing needs of the society, thus, making it further difficult to assign it a single conclusive definition.