1|Page

________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC-RULE OF LAW

Supervised By:
Mr. SOURADEEP RAKSHIT
(ASST. PROF. OF LAW)

NAME: TOHIJUL SAIKH

ROLL NO: 90
COURSE: LLB 3YEARS (2ND SEMESTER)
2|Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With profound gratitude and sense of indebtedness I place on record my

sincerest thanks to Mr.Souradeep Rakshit Indian Institute of Legal Studies, for his
invaluable guidance, sound advice and affectionate attitude during the course of
my studies.

I have no hesitation in saying that she molded raw clay into whatever I am
through his/her incessant efforts and keen interest shown throughout my
academic pursuit. It is due to his/her patient guidance that I have been able to
complete the task.

I would also thank the Indian institute of Legal Studies Library for the wealth of
information therein. I also express my regards to the Library staff for
cooperating and making available the books for this project research paper.

Finally, I thank my beloved parents for supporting me morally and guiding me

throughout the project work.

Date: 09/03/2018 TOHIJUL SAIKH

TEACHER SEGNATURE
3|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESEARCH METHOLODOGY……………………………………………………………4

CHAPTER-1

Introductiion………………………………………………………………………….………5

1.1Supremacy of Law……………………………………………………………………..…5

1.2Equality before the Law………………………………………………………………….5

CHAPTER-II

2.1 General……………………………………………………………………………………6

2.2 RULE OF LAW- A STATE OF AFFAIRS………………………………………..…..6

2.3 RULE OF LAW- GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAW………………………….….7

2.4 WADE’S INTERPRETATION OF RULE OF LAW………………………………...7

CHAPTER-III

3.1 EVALUATION OF DICEY’S CONCEPT OF RULE OF LAW……………………9

3.2 MODERN MEANING OF RULE OF LAW…………………………………………10

3.3 FORMAL AND IDEOLOGICAL MEANING OF “RULE OF LAW……………..11

3.4 RULE OF LAW IN INDIA……………………………………………………………11

CHAPTER-IV
4.1 UNDER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS………………………………………………….14
4.2 PART OF THE BASIS STRUCTURE………………………………….……………..15

CHAPTER-V:CASE STUDY……………………………………..……………….……….16

CHAPTER-VI: CONCLUSION……………………………………………...……………17

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………….……………18
4|Page

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AIM & OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study is to give knowledge about the Rule of Law and its
Implementation. The main object of this project is meaning, definition and
constitutional implementation of rule of law.

SCOPE OF STUDY

The study primarily focuses on the rule as it is developed in the common law
system and its implications on India. Its secondary focus also deals with the
situations prevailing in countries around the world.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study is significant as it helps us to know about the crimes which lead to
death sentence. The study contains certain national as well as international cases
which shows how the wrong doers in the world were punished and how it
affected the families of those who were hanged.

LIMITATION OF THE PROJECT

The project fails to conduct a primary research thorough examination,

interviews and surveys due to lack of time and vague understanding. The
research of the project limits to book and internet content

RESEARCH QUESTION

1.WHAT IS RULE OF LAW?

2.WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT EQUILITY BEFORE LAW?

3.WHAT IS SUPREMACY OF LAW?

5|Page

CHAPTER-I: INTRODUCTION

The concept of Rule of Law is that the state is governed, not by the ruler or the nominated
representatives of the people but by the law. A county that enshrines the rule of law would be
one wherein the Grundnorm of the country, or the basic and core law from which all other
law derives its authority is the supreme authority of the state. The monarch or the
representatives of the republic are governed by the laws derived out of the Grundnorm and
their powers are limited by the law. The King is not the law but the law is king

The origins of the Rule of Law theory can be traced back to the Ancient Romans during the
formation of the first republic; it has since been championed by several medieval thinkers in
Europe such as Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau through the social contract theory. Indian
philosophers such as Chanakya have also espoused the rule of law theory in their own way,
by maintaining that the King should be governed by the word of law.

The formal origin of the word is attributed to Sir. Edward Coke, and is derived from French
phase ‘la principe de legalite’ which means the principle of legality. The firm basis for the
Rule of Law theory was expounded by A. V. Dicey and his theory on the rule of law remains
the most popular. Dicey’s theory has three pillars based on the concept that “a government
should be based on principles of law and not of men”, these are:

1.1Supremacy of Law: 

This has always been the basic understanding of the rule of law that propounds that the law
rules over all people including the persons administering the law. The lawmakers need to
give reasons that can be justified under the law while exercising their powers to make and
administer the law.

1.2Equality before the Law: 

While the principle of supremacy of law sets in place cheques and balances over the
government on making and administering the law, the principle of equality before the law
seeks to ensure that the law is administered and enforced in a just manner. It is not enough to
have a fair law but the law must be applied in a just manner as well.
6|Page

CHAPTER-II: MEANING AND DEFINITION OF RULE OF LAW

2.1 GENERAL

The term 'rule of law* means the principled of legality which refers to a government based on
principles of and not of men. In this sense the concept of the rule of law is opposed to
arbitrary powers.

Rule of law is one of the basic principles of the English Constitution: This doctrine has been
enshrined in the Constitution of U.S.A. and in the Constitution of India as well. The entire
basis of administrative law is the concept of rule of law. Sir Edward Coke, The Chief Justice
in James I's reign is said to be the originator, of this great principled. In a battle against the
King, he succeeded in maintaining that the King must be under the God and the law and thus
vindicated the supremacy of law against the executive. Dicey developed, this doctrine of
Coke in his classic book, 'The Law and the Constitution' published in the year 1885.

2.2 RULE OF LAW- A STATE OF AFFAIRS

The expression "rule of law" explains a state of affairs in which everything must be done
according to law. It is a state of affairs in which there are legal barriers to governmental
arbitrariness and there are available legal safeguards for the protection of the individuals. In
simple words, it is the reverse of tyranny, the antithesis of the rule of anarchy and fear.1

Garner2 holds that the expression "Rule of Law" is often used simply to describe the state of
affairs in a country where, in main, the law is observed and order is kept. It is thus
synonymous with "law and order".

The expression "Rule of Laio" is said to have been derived from the French maxim "la
principe de legalite", which broadly means "government based on principles of law and not
of men". "Ride of Law" in this sense, is a concept opposed to arbitrary or tyrannical power.

2.3 RULE OF LAW- GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAW:

1
Ex-Attorney General Mr. Mannigham Buller, quoted in S. Rajagopalan, Administrative Law, 1970, 57.
22
Administrative Law, 1983, 9.
7|Page

It signifies that nobody should be deprived of his rights and liberties by - any administrative
action; that the administration should perform its functions according to law and not
arbitrarily; that the supremacy of the Courts be upheld, to fully secure the judicial control of
Administrative Law.
According to Prof. Goodhart,3 the essence of "Rule of law" is that "public officers are governed
by law, which limits their powers. It means government under law—the supremacy of law
over the government is distinct from government by law—the mere supremacy of law in
society generally which would apply also, to totalitarian States."
To put it in short, "Rule of Law" implies a state of affairs, where there is absence of arbitrary
powers, where law is observed by everyone including the Government and its officers, where
the action of the administration is backed by law, where every man is equal before law and
assured that he will not be punished except for violation of law, where cases relating to
violation of law or disputes as to rights and duties, are decided by impartial and independent
Courts or Tribunals.4

2.4 WADE’S INTERPRETATION OF RULE OF LAW

Wade & Forsyth,5 assign four meanings to "rule of law". Its primary meaning is that
"everything must be done according to law". It requires that every government authority must
be able to justify its action as authorized by law. And, that the affected person may always
resort to the Court of law and if the legal pedigree is not found to be perfectly in order, the
Court will invalidate the act. It is called the principle of legality.

Therefore, "rule of law" means that "government should be conducted within a framework of
recognized rules and principles which restrict discretionary power." It is the secondary
meaning of the rule of law, say the learned writers. They refer to Edward Coke's description
of "rule of law" as "the golden and straight metwand of law, as opposed to the uncertain and crooked
cord of discretion."6

3
Prof. A.L. Goodhart, “The Rule of Law and Absolute Sovereignty”, 106 UPLR, (1958), 943.
4
See also K.C. Davis, supra, note 11.
5
Administrative Law, 2007, 20-24.
6
Sir Edward Coke was the Chief Justice in the Court of James I. He was credited with being the originator of the
concept of “rule of law”.
8|Page

The third meaning of "rule of law", a corollary drawn from its first meaning, Wade & Forsyth say,
is that disputes as to the legality of acts of government, are to be decided by Judges who are
independent of the Executive. The right to carry a dispute with the government before the
ordinary Courts, manned by Judges of the highest independence, is, according to the learned
writers, an important element in the Anglo-American concept of the rule of law.7

The law should be even-handed between the Government and citizen. That, the Government
should not enjoy unnecessary privileges or exemptions from ordinary law. That, "all public
authorities", in principle, "should be subject to all normal legal duties and liabilities which are
not inconsistent with their governmental functions". It is the fourth meaning assigned to the
concept of "rule of law."8

Besides the above four meanings of "rule of law" which may be said to be the principles for
the maintenance of the "rule of law", what is most essential is the establishment of
"representative democracy", providing for beneficial social and economic services and
conditions, personal independence, along with the principle of "minimal interference

CHAPTER-III: EVALUATION CONCEPT OF RULE OF LAW

3.1 EVALUATION OF DICEY’S CONCEPT OF RULE OF LAW:

7
Id., 22.
8
Id., 22.
9|Page

Dicey's formulation of the concept of "rule of law" has been subjected to criticism on various
counts.
While explaining the contents of his doctrine of "Rule of Law", Dicey not only excluded
"discretionary powers" but also insisted that the administrative authorities should not be given
wide discretionary powers. He believed that "wherever there is discretion there is room for
arbitrariness."
Dicey, thus, failed to distinguish arbitrary powers from discretionary powers. While arbitrary power is
said to be inconsistent with the concept of "Rule of Law", discretionary power would not be, if
it is exercised properly. Intensive Government as it exists in modem times, say Wade &
Forsyth9 "cannot be carried on without a great deal of discretionary power" and that this
power "is often conferred in excessively sweeping language".
Besides, Dicey ignored the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Crown (which term
stood for the Executive) under the cover of the Constitutional maxim "King can do no wrong".
Dicey, therefore, say Jain & Jain, was factually wrong in his analysis, though his exposition
of "Rule of Law" has had a tremendous impact on the growth of Administrative Law in
England.10
Dicey's criticism of French system of Administrative Courts is said to be based on his
mistaken conclusion. He misunderstood and miscomprehended the real nature of the system.
He held that Droit Administratif was designed for the purpose of giving to officials "a whole
body of special rights, privileges or prerogatives as against private citizens", 11 so as to make
them a law unto themselves.
The French Administrative Law, the learned authors assert, "has a system of compensation
for the acts of public officers which is in some respect more generous than that of English
Law.”12 It is that, the French Conseil d’ Etat is widely admired and has served as a model for
other countries.13
Besides, Dicey also ignored the growth of administrative tribunals, 14 quite a few of which had
come into existence when he propounded his concept of "rule of law".
Later, Dicey himself became conscious of the emergence of Administrative Law in England.

9
Supra note 3, 23.
10
Jain and Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, 2008, 13-14.
11
A.V. Dicey, The Law of The Constitution, X, 336.
12
Ibid.
13
See Brown and Bell, French Administrative Law, V, quoted Ibid.
14
For instance, special tribunals were established under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, whereunder poor
law boards exercised legislative and adjucatory powers. Besides, there were Ecclesiastical and Admiralty
Courts exercising special jurisdiction.
10 | P a g e

The principle implicit in Dicey's "rule of law" thesis is that the Executive must act under the
law and not by its own decree or fiat. It is still the core principle of the Common Law system.
One thing must be noted. In modern times, Dicey's rule of law has come to be identified with
the concept of rights of citizens. As Wade and Phillips16 rightly state, it is accepted in almost
all the countries outside the Communist world with some variations. It is invoked in modern
democratic countries to keep control over the oppressive, capricious and arbitrary exercise of
powers by the administrative authorities. The International Commission of Jurists, in their
'Delhi Declaration' made in the year 1959 accepted the idea of the rule of law as a modern
form of law of nature. In the ultimate analysis it may be concluded that Dicey’s contribution
to the study of Administrative Law must be acknowledged.

3.2 MODERN MEANING OF RULE OF LAW:

The modern concept of "Rule of Law" was developed by the International Commission of
jurists in 1959,15 which was later on confirmed at Lagos in 1961. The Jurists 16 recorded that
"rule of law" depended not only on the existence of adequate safeguards against the abuse of
power by the executive but also on the existence of effective Government capable of
maintaining law and order and ensuring social and economic conditions of life for society.

Stating that an independent legal profession was the sine qua non of the "Rule of Law", the
Jurists expressed that there should be independent judiciary with the security of tenure free
from legislative and executive interference.17

The modern concept of the Rule of Law is fairly wide. Davis 18 gives seven principal
meanings of the term Rule of Law:—

(1) Law and Order,

(2) Fixed rules;
(3) Elimination of discretion;
(4) Due Process of law or fairness;
(5) Natural Law or observance of the principles of natural justice;

15
It is known as Delhi Declaration, 1959.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Administrative Law, 1959, pp. 24-27.
11 | P a g e

(6) Preference for judges and ordinary courts of law to executive authorities and
administrative tribunals; and
(7) Judicial review of administrative action.

3.3 FORMAL AND IDEOLOGICAL MEANING OF “RULE OF LAW” :

The term 'rule of law' can be used in two senses: formal sense, and ideological sense. In
purely formal sense the rule means no more than organised public power. In this sense the
rule of law refers to the rule of organisation.

In purely formal sense, any system of norm based on a hierarchy of orders, even the
organised mass murders of Nazi Regime qualify as law.

In ideological sense, the rule of law sets an ideal for any government to achieve. This concept
was developed by the International Commission of Jurists known as Delhi Declaration, 1959.

3.4 RULE OF LAW IN INDIA:

For a democratic government, rule of law is a basic requirement. The rule of law runs like a
golden thread through every provision of the Constitution and indisputably constitutes one of
its basic features, which requires that every organ of the state must act within the confines of
powers conferred upon it by the Constitution and the law. The rule of law pervades over the
entire field of administration.19

Rule of law permeates the entire fabric of the Indian Constitution and indeed forms one of its
basic features.20 Law in the context of the rule of law does not mean any law enacted by the
legislative authorities, however arbitrary or despotic it may be ...............what is necessary
element of the rule of law is that law must not be arbitrary or irrational and it must satisfy the
test of reason and the democratic form if the polity seeks to ensure this element by making
the frame of law accountable to the people."21

19
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.
20
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336.
21
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1336.
 12 | P a g e

Even law can promote arbitrary power. Law and rule of law are two different concepts. As
Justice Khanna emphasised in his celebrated dissenting opinion in the Habeas corpus case,22 "A
state of negation of rule of law would not cease to be such a state because of the fact that such
a state of negation of rule of law has been brought about by statute.”
Every organ of the administration is regulated by the rule of law. The Indian Constitution
embodies the modern concept of the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law exists in this
country by virtue of the following features:
1) Supremacy of the constitution. - Dicey’s doctrine of the rule of law has been accepted and
embodied in the Constitution of India. In the Preamble are enunciated the ideals of justice,
liberty and equality. These concepts are enshrined in the Part III as fundamental rights and
are made enforceable. The Constitution is supreme 23 and all the three organs of the
government, that is legislature, executive and judiciary are subordinate to and have to act in
accordance with it. The principle of judicial review is enshrined in the Constitution and
subject can approach High Courts and Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Supreme Court under Art. 32 and High Court
under Art. 226 can issue writs for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights.

If the executive or the government abuses the powers conferred on it or if the action is mala
fide, the same can be quashed by the ordinary courts. All rules, regulations, ordinances, bye-
laws, notifications, customs and usages are laws within the meaning of Art.13 of the
Constitution. If they are Inconsistent or contrary to any provision of the Constitution, they
can be declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 24
The executive and legislative powers of the State and the Union are required to be exercised
according to the provisions of the Constitution. The government and public officials are not
above law.

2) Constitutional requirement of equality. - Equality before law as a postulate of rule of law has
been accepted and adopted under Art 14 of the Constitution. The maxim ‘the king can do no
wrong' has no application in India. The government and public authorities are subject to the
jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law and for similar wrongs are to be tried and penalized
similarly.

22
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207.
23
AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
24
Art. 21.
 13 | P a g e

In Som Raj v. State of Haryana25 it was held by the Supreme Court 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 reasonable, manner
and should not be exercised arbitrarily. "The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate
of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is based. If the discretion is
exercised without any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the
antithesis of rule of law.”
3) Rule of law as a feature of basic structure. - In Kesvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala26
some of the judges constituting majority were of the opinion that the Rule of law was an
"aspect of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution, which even the plenary power of
Parliament cannot reach to amend."
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,27 wherein the Apex Court invalidated Clause (4) of
Article 329-A, inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975,
to immunize the election dispute to the office of the Prime Minister from any kind of judicial
review, the following facets of "Rule of Law" may be culled out—

CHAPTER-IV: RULE OF LAW UNDER CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

25
(1990) 2 SCC 653.
26
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
27
AIR 1975 SC 2299.
14 | P a g e

4.1 UNDER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

In India, the concept of Rule of law can be traced back to the Upanishads. [7] In modern day
as well, the scheme of the Indian Constitution is based upon the concept of rule of law. The
framers of the Constitution were well familiar with the postulates of rule of law as
propounded by Dicey and as modified in its application to British India. It was therefore, in
the fitness of things that the founding fathers of the Constitution gave due recognition to the
concept of rule of law. 28

The doctrine of Rule of Law as enunciated by Dicey has been adopted and very succinctly
incorporated in the Indian Constitution. The ideals of the Constitution viz; justice, liberty and
equality are enshrined in the Preamble itself (which is part of the Constitution).

The Constitution of India has been made the supreme law of the country and other laws are
required to be in conformity with it. Any law which is found in violation of any provision of
the Constitution, particularly, the fundamental rights, is declared void. [9] The Indian
Constitution also incorporates the principle of equality before law and equal protection of
laws enumerated by Dicey under Article 14 .

The very basic human right to life and personal liberty has also been enshrined under Article
21. Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the third principle of the Rule of
law (freedom of speech and Expression). No person can be convicted of any offence except
for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence
is also very well recognized in the Indian Constitution.  The principles of double jeopardy
and self-incrimination also found its rightful place in the Constitution.  Articles 14, 19 and 21
are so basic that they are also called the golden triangle Articles of the Indian Constitution.29

4.2 PART OF THE BASIS STRUCTURE:

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, shocked the status of Rule of law in India.
The question which came up for consideration in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India [16] was
whether the fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368. The Supreme Court held

28
https://www.slideshare.net/sunitkapoor1/rule-of-law-47619233
29
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/principles/
15 | P a g e

that Parliament has the power to amend Part III of the Constitution under Article 368 as under
Article 13 ‘law’ means any legislative action and not a constitutional amendment. Therefore,
a constitutional amendment would be valid if abridges any of the fundamental rights.

The question again came up for consideration in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [17] in
which the Supreme Court approved the majority judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held
that amendment of the Constitution means amendment of all provisions of the Constitution.
Hon’ble Chief Justice Gajendragadkar held that if the framers of the constitution intended to
exclude fundamental rights from the scope of the amending power they would have made a
clear provision in that behalf.

However, both these cases were overruled by the Apex Court in Golaknath v. State of
Punjab  and it held that Parliament has no power to amend the Part III of the Constitution so
as to take away or abridges the fundamental rights and thus, at the end the Rule of law was
sub-served by the Judiciary from abridging away. However, the Rule of law was crumpled
down with the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. Parliament by the way
of this Amendment inserted a new clause (4) in Article 13 which provided that ‘nothing in
this Article shall apply to any amendment of this constitution made under Art 368’. It
substituted the heading of Article 368 from ‘Procedure for amendment of Constitution’ to
‘Power of Parliament to amend Constitution and Procedure thereof’30

CHAPTER-V: CASE STUDY

A D M Jabalpur v. Shivkanth Shukla In this case, the question before the court was
‘whether there was any rule of law in India apart from Article 21’. This was in the context of
suspension of enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 during the proclamation of an

30
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/three-principles-to-strengthen-the-rule-of-law
16 | P a g e

emergency. The answer to the majority of the bench was in negative for the question of law.
However, Justice H.R. Khanna dissented from the majority opinion and observed that:

“Even in absence of Article 21 in 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…Rule of Law is now the accepted norm of all civilized societies

Chief Settlement Commr; Punjab v. Om Prakash, 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 the case of Satvant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathanana the Supreme Court has
held that every executive action, if it operates to the prejudice of any person, must be
supported by some legislative authority

In  Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3)and Ors[vi]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.”Most
famously in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala the Supreme Court held that
the Rule of Law is an essential part of the basic structure of the constitution and as such
cannot be amended by any Act of Parliament, thereby showing how the law is superior to all
other authority of men.31

CONCLUSION

The founding fathers of India accomplished what the rest of the world though impossible-
establish a country that would follow the letter of the law and implement the Rule of Law. In

31
https://www.lawnotes.in/Rule_of_Law
17 | P a g e

all matters such as the protection of the rights of the people, equal treatment before the law,
protection against excessive arbitrariness, the Constitution of India has provided enough
mechanisms to ensure that the Rule of Law is followed.

Through its decisions, the Courts have strived to reinforce these mechanisms and ensure
smooth justice delivery to all citizens. Problems such as outdated legislation and
overcrowded courts are but small hindrances and bodies such as the Law Commission of
India work towards ironing out these problems with the aim of achieving a system where
there are no barriers to the smooth operation of the Rule of Law.32

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Material

 Constitution of India

Secondary materials

32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
18 | P a g e

 Books Referred
 A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the law of the Constitution, London, 1931.
 Ashok Chanda, Indian Administration, London
 Administrative Law Treatise, 1958 Vol.1
 . Allen, Law and orders (1956)
 .Archives parlementaries, 1st series, vol. 8.
 Alice Jacob, "Centre State Governmental Relation in India
 Federal System S.N. Jain and Others (Ed.).

Articles:

 Siddanth, “Separation of Powers : Constitutional plan and practice,” September,

2010.
 Prachishah, “Separation of Powers in India and USA,”December, 2010.

News papers :
 Judicial Challenge’, Frontline, February 9, 2007

. Judicial Challenge’, Frontline, March 26, 2010

. The Tribune, 16th November, 2008.

Internet
 htpp://answer.ask.com

 wikipedia, the freeencyelopedia

. www.google.com

 www.1egalsutra.com