List of cases on Rule of Law

 Keshavananda Bhartiv.State of Kerala, AIR1973 SC 1461. It

was held that Judicial review is based on the rule of law which
is basic structure of Indian Constitituion which cannot be
damaged or destroyed even in the amending powers of Article
368 of the Constitution.
 A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India,AIR 1970 SC 150. The SC said
that under our Constitution “the rule of Law pervades over the
entire field of administration and every organ of the state is
regulated by the Rule of Law”.
 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,AIR 1982 SC 1325. In this
case hon’ble Justice Bhagwati holding that “law” in the context
of “Rule of Law” did not mean any law enacted by legislative
authority howsoever arbitrary, despotic it might be, what is
necessary element of rule of law is that the law must not be
arbitrary or irrational and must satisfy the test of reason and the
democratic form of polity seeks to ensure this element by
making the framer of the law accountable to the people.
 Som Raj v. State of Haryana,(1990) 2 SCC 653. It was held by
SC that normally the order of appointment would be in order of
merit of candidates from the select list. Even when the
discretion is conferred on an executive authority, it must be
exercised in a resonable manner and should not be exercised
arbitrarily. The absence of arbitrary power is first postulates of
the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is
based.
 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Knot,AIR 2006 SC
2007. SC while explaining the rule of Law observed that any
 country or society professing rule of law as its basic feature or
characteristics does not distinguish between high or low, weak
or mighty. Only monarchies and even some democracies have
adopted the age old principle that the King cannot be sued in his
own courts.
 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkanth Sukhla AIR 1976SC 1207
Legal Point: Whether there was any rule of Law in India apart
from Art. 21
(This was in context of suspension of enforcement of Art. 14, 21
&22 during proclamation of emergency)
The answer of majority was in negative for the question of
law. However justice H.R. Khanna dissented from the majority
decision and observed that
“Even in the absence of Art. 21in the Constitution, the state
has got no power to deprive a person of his life and liberty
without the authority of law. Without such sanctity of life and
liberty, the distinction between a lawless society and one
governed by laws would cease to have any meaning.”
 Pancham chand v. State of H.P (2008) 7 SCC 117
In this case it is observed that our Constitution envisages a rule of
men and not a rule of law. It recognizes that howsoever high one
may be, he is under the law and the constitution. All the
Constitution functionaries must, therefore, function within the
constitutional limits.
 In Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3)and Ors
AIR 2006 SC 1806, A Constitution Bench of this Court has laid
down the law in the following terms: “Thus, it is clear that
adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic
feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of
 our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing
an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article
14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.”
 In Chief settlement Commr; 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.”
 In Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narayan,AIR 1975 SC 2299
Article 329-A was inserted in the Constitution under 39th
amendment, which provided certain immunities to the election of
office of Prime Minister from judicial review. The Supreme Court
declared Article 329-A as invalid since it abridges the basic
structure of the Constitution. I
 In the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs.State of Assam, 2009 it was
held by S B Sinha that: “Equity must not be equated with
compassion. Equitable principles must emanate from facts which
by themselves are unusual and peculiar. A balance has to be struck
and the Court must be cautious to ensure that its endeavour to do
equity does not amount to judicial benevolence or acquiescence of
established violation of fundamental rights and the principles of
Rule of law.”
 In P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1987 SC
663the SC has declared a provision authorizing the executive to
interfere with tribunal justice as unconstitutional characterizing it
 as “violative of the rule of law which is clearly a basic and
essential feature of the constitution”.
 Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi, 2000 in which the SC laid down
the proposition that it is the duty of the state to preserve and protect
the law and the constitution and that it cannot permit any violent
act which may negate the rule of law.