I Quote: I feel that our constitutional republic's crown gem is an independent judiciary.
The rule of law imposes on courts, the authority to deal with all other branches of government, including the legislature. This paper examines a variety of possible answers to the questions and considers the possibility that the supremacy of courts in a constitution could reflect a form of judicial supremacy that is remarkably similar to the uncontrolled rule of men, which is the goal of the rule of law. It is especially important for courts to recognize that their power is limited and that they should not be governed by any overall political agenda other than that of ensuring that constitutional restraints on government are upheld to prevent such a possibility.
The phrase “Rule of Law,” which is believed to have originated from Latin Phrase La Legalite, signifies that government is built on rules of law and not on men. Democracy means a rule of law, rather than a rule of force and supremacy of the law, where no one, no matter who is the highest individual, is above the law., The word originated in Britain, but it gained prominence in ancient India in the form of the ‘Dharma,’ which was doing what one was supposed to do. This dharma was gradually replaced by religious texts and the priests., With the arrival of the Britishers and the codification of laws, religious scriptures lost their importance and were replaced by written laws, and the concept of the Rule of Law was formalized. The Rule of Law is a potent countermeasure to executive lawlessness and is woven into our Constitution like a golden thread. This doctrine is founded on the principle that anyone who has power is subject to limitations on the exercise of that power, which establishes unalterable supremacy of law. Dicey, a British jurist, believes that this doctrine rests on three pillars, namely supremacy of law, equality of law, and predominance of legal spirit. The dynamic nature of this doctrine gives it far-reaching protection from arbitrary and calculated actions of the executive, as was demonstrated in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 2 S.C.C. 159 which upheld the 39th Constitutional Amendment that added paragraphs 4 and 5 to Article 329.