RULE OF LAW AS A PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Keywords:
Rule of Law, Indian Constitution, Democracy, Constitutionalism, Judicial Review, Fundamental Rights, Separation of Powers, Judicial Independence, Free and Fair Elections.Abstract
The Rule of Law is a key premise of constitutional democracy. It assumes the rule of law, the subjection of all individuals to law, the protection of individual rights and the availability of independent tribunals to evaluate illegal governmental conduct. Though the phrase “Rule of Law” is not specifically mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, its essence is embedded in the constitutional structure through constitutional supremacy, equality before law, fundamental rights, judicial review, separation of powers, independent judiciary, free and fair elections and accountable government.
The Indian Supreme Court has gradually evolved the Rule of Law from a broad constitutional aspiration into an actionable concept. Since Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala the Court has acknowledged that some essential characteristics of the Constitution cannot be removed even by constitutional change. The principle has been reinforced by subsequent decisions such as Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, Minerva Mills v Union of India, L Chandra Kumar v Union of India, I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu, K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, Shayara Bano v Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, Joseph Shine v Union of India and Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India.
The recent rulings show that the Rule of Law is developing to tackle present-day concerns such as electoral democracy, constitutional governance, administrative accountability and the use of artificial intelligence in adjudication. In Vijay Bahadur v Sunil Kumar (2025), the Supreme Court has underlined the connection between democracy, free and fair elections and the Rule of Law. In the case of Pooja Ramesh Singh v Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd (2026), the Court examined the negative consequences of dependence on AI-generated bogus or hallucinated precedents and stressed the need for accuracy and human accountability in judicial decision-making.
The article seeks to critically explore the constitutional underpinnings, judicial progress, democratic importance, present issues and future possibilities of the Rule of Law in India.
References
1. A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
3. E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1.
5. ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.
6. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
7. Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.
8. S.P. Gupta v Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87.
9. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 699.
10. S.R. Bommai v Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
11. L Chandra Kumar v Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.
12. Vineet Narain v Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226.
13. I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1.
14. Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
15. K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
16. Shayara Bano v Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
17. Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
18. Joseph Shine v Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.
19. Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
20. Madras Bar Association v Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369.
21. Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 1.
22. St Mary's Education Society v Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498.
23. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India (2024).
24. Vijay Bahadur v Sunil Kumar, 2025 INSC 332.
25. Dr Sunil Kumar Singh v Bihar Legislative Council, 2025 INSC 264.
26. Imran Pratapgadhi v State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410.
27. Pooja Ramesh Singh v Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, 2026 INSC 668.
