5.

Rule of law in international perspective and comparative analysis

Based on careful observation, it is known that the Rule of Law was shaped for 150 years in
European countries, which ultimately resulted in the creation of Administrative Law. In contrast,
the study of Administrative Law in the United States of America gained popularity a few
decades ago, as evidenced by its steady advancement.

Conversely, in France, the notion of the Rule of Law served as the catalyst for the French
Revolution yet, it was neither codified or organized there. This caused the French government to
experience the dictatorship that Napoleon Bonaparte oversaw. The intriguing aspect, though, is
how the idea was incorporated into Indian Upanishads and how most Indians are unable to
recognize it. This outline makes it clear why it's important to examine how the idea of the rule of
law is understood in each of these four (4)countries.

5.1 RULE OF LAW IN UNITED KINGDOM

As a result of the then-rulers' constant exposure to harmful arbitrary powers, the Rule of Law
began to take shape in the United Kingdom. The fight between Parliament and rulers, the British
Empire's attempt to repress its colonies, and numerous diplomatic and civil conflicts between
English rulers and their citizens all contributed to the development of the idea of the Rule of
Law. The pursuit of independence led to a widening of perspectives on individual rights and
personal liberty.Magna Carta is the first political instrument that curtailed the king's
authority.Kind John accepted the Charter on June 15, 1215, which grants the Barons more
authority to make administrative decisions and restricts the King's authority.

The King must examine them both and acknowledge the Barons' judgment in them. The idea that
the Crown did not have absolute power was revolutionized by this Charter.After that, the Magna
Carta was followed by the kings that came after, ending the kings' absolute authority. The
question of the Stuart Kings' authority now surfaced.There was clear opposition to the king's
divine authority from the Parliament and the Royal Courts of Justice throughout the 17th
century, when Sir Edward Coke was the Chief Justice of England. When writs were issued to
examine the rulings of the local feudal and ecclesiastical courts, the courts dealt with matters of
privilege, seizures, and detentions.
Owing to this dispute, James I sent Justice Coke a royal order in 1616, issued by Sir Francis
Bacon in his capacity as Attorney General, instructing him not to tamper with the king's
authority. Judge Coke vehemently disagreed, arguing that the courts should have the authority to
determine matters. Justice Coke lost his job as a result of this uprising, and the tug-of-war went
on for a hundred years. The country's revolution in 1701 led to the creation of the Act of
Settlement, which established the supremacy of the Parliamentary Powers and the tenure
independence of judges.

5.2 RULE OF LAW IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The primary focus on the Rule of Law is obligated by the citizens' extraordinary responsibility to
abide by the Rules. Therefore, the States place a strong premium on abiding by the laws that
their different governments have made.

The continual uprising in the 18th and 19th centuries caused the United States to become a
colony of the United Kingdom.After the United Kingdom and the States gained their
independence in the 20th century, the States embraced the values and ideas that the United
Kingdom had upheld.

It is organized as a legal document called a Bill in Equity and contains a number of standard
ending oaths, a list of wrongs, an explanation of why other remedies would not be enough, a
request for remedy, and a statement respecting jurisdiction. In order to demonstrate the States'
independence and demonstrate it to the rest of the world, the then-President Jefferson brought
this document before the Court.

It established the three distinct branches of American government, each of which would be
independent and balanced with the others. Open and transparent legislation would be made by
the LegislativeBranch, or Congress. Laws would be continuously enforced by the Executive
Branch, which includes the President, Cabinet, and other agencies. No one would ever be above
the law. The US Supreme Court and other federal courts that make up the Judicial Branch would
freely and impartially interpret the law and settle disputes. Thus, it is clear that the US embraced
and firmly established the concept of the separation of powers. Furthermore, since the Federal
Government Setup was a part of the Constitution and the Supremacy of Law was maintained, it
is important to remember that by adhering to faultless Federal Government Policy, we can see
that the Rule of Law was regarded as supreme.

Certain individual rights are listed in the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to due process and
the right to counsel in court. The Constitution also restricts the power of the state, shielding
citizens from established state religions, state-run media, illegal searches, and harsh or unusual
penalties. One of the constitutions that has been most successful in ensuring individual liberty is
the United States of America. The US Constitution's provisions had a significant influence on the
idea of the Fundamental Rights in India, as evidenced by the latter's broad recognition of
individual freedom and liberty.

Since the functions of the federal setup are clearly different from those of Congress and the state,
it also precludes the government from using arbitrary power. Because every state has equal
representation, there isn't any uneven power or influence distribution between them.From the
foregoing, it is clear that the US upholds the strong Rule of Law and is proactive in assimilating
into the global community.

5.3 RULE OF LAW IN FRANCE

The French term "état de droit" is equivalent to "rule of law," but it encompasses a far broader
meaning. It originated from the German word "Rechtsstaat," which Robert Van Mohl defined
as living together in a way that will support and encourage each member to the fullest extent
possible in their free and complete exercise and use of their strengths. The liberal definition and
significance of the phrases Rule of Law and Rechtstaat account for the dearth of terms that are
synonymous with them.

Etat De Droit forbids the establishment of prerogative or even broad discretionary authority and
guarantees the total supremacy or predominance of law over arbitrary power.

France saw five republics from the 18th century till the present. From a constitutional monarchy
to a radical republic, from a moderate reaction to dictature, to the restoration of the monarchy,
the form of government changed. Now, the Fifth Amendment passed the Stable
Constitution 1958 Republic.
The French judicial system was extremely distinctive in that it operated under the doctrine of
Droit Administratiff, which provides that courts other than regular courts had jurisdiction over
administrative matters and legal matters. The topic of discussion is restricted to Administrative
Courts because the subject is on administrative law.

Furthermore, the Tribunal Des Conflicts will determine the nature of the case and whether
ordinary courts or special administrative courts will handle the matter in the event of a dispute
regarding the issue's classification or whether it falls under the purview of the Administrative
Courts.

5.4 RULE OF LAW IN INDIA

The evolution of governance in India has seen a transition from monarchy to a complex system
of provincial states. Initially, governance was guided by Vedic texts, Puranas, and Upanishads,
with kings tasked with delivering justice based on teachings from revered sages like Manu.
During the Mughal rule, Islamic principles from the Quran and local customs influenced justice
delivery.

British colonization introduced modern courts, where Indian adherence to British laws became
the norm. Judicial decisions from Supreme Courts in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal, as well as
pronouncements from the Privy Council, set legal precedents.

Post-independence, the Indian Constitution became the cornerstone of governance. It

incorporated principles such as the prevention of arbitrariness and ensuring equality (Article 14
and Article 21), and granted independence and power to the courts (Articles 32, 141, and 226).
This journey showcases India's transition from ancient traditions to a modern legal framework
underpinned by constitutional principles.

Through the play of interpretation, Indian Judiciary was able to ensure that Rule of Law exists
with evolution but notdevolution. Now it is pertinent to quote a few cases to prove the same.

Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Keralai

The reason people can live truly independent lives is because of this case. According to the
Court, the Parliament can change anything in the Constitution, but not its fundamental ideas.
Here, the basic structure doctrine—which maintained that the Rule of Law cannot be violated—
was introduced. Additionally, the Court upheld the Rule of Law by restricting the Parliament's
authority, which stops the Parliament from passing laws arbitrarily. This case demonstrated why
the Indian Constitution is under the custody of the judiciary.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of Indiaii

The case addressed an individual's rights generally even though it just concerned one person's
freedom to travel overseas. Because of this case, Article 21 currently serves as the catch-all for
all fundamental rights that define what it is to be human. Furthermore, in order to determine what
constitutes a "Procedure Established by Law," the case was reaffirmed using foreign
jurisprudence, specifically American law. The court upheld the requirement that the legal
procedure be equated with the due process of law, since the law will evolve in response to
evolving circumstances. There will never be an arbitrary law.

6. Rule of Law in Bangladesh

The preamble of the Bangladeshi Constitution states that upholding the rule of law is the main
goal of the document. The law's code is actually a fundamental component of Bangladesh's
constitution. In the preamble of the constitution pertaining to Bangladesh, it was promised that
the state's fundamental goal would be to implement a democratic program that would enable the
realization of a great socialist society free from exploitation, one in which everyone would have
access to political, economic, and social justice as well as fundamental human rights, freedom,
and equality. Article 7 of the Constitution states at the outset of the substantive provisions that
the rule of law is essential to the Republic's governance.

6.1 Preamble

One fundamental aspect of Bangladesh's constitution is the rule of law. The preamble of the
Bangladeshi Constitution states that the state's fundamental goal is to realize a socialist society
free from exploitation, one in which everyone will have access to the rule of law, fundamental
human rights and freedom, equality, and justice on all political, economic, and social fronts. iii

6.2 Representative Government

Article 7 of the Constitution clearly mentions representative governance before outlining the
framework of the government. Article 11 calls for elected representatives at all administrative
levels, whereas Article 9 discusses the spread of the representative character to municipal
government. Article 59 states unequivocally that bodies made up of individuals elected in line
with the law shall be tasked with overseeing local government in each administrative unit of the
Republic. An very significant comment was made by the Appellate Division: the elimination of a
local government tier cannot be used as a ruse to transfer its authority and duties to a non-
representative entity or person.

Once more, without the ability to guarantee free and fair elections that represent the will of the
people, a representative democracy is rendered meaningless. Consequently, the Election
Commission, which has been deemed independent in the performance of its duties, has been
entrusted with the responsibility of conducting elections by the Constitution. In order to preserve
the Election Commission's independence, it has been stipulated that its members may only be
dismissed from their positions in a similar fashion and for the same reasons as a Supreme Court
judge.

6.3 Equality before the law

Article 27 of the Constitution states that everyone is equal before the law, regardless of status or
position, and that everyone, no matter how powerful or high, is subject to the laws of the land.
According to the Bangladeshi Constitution, no citizen shall be denied entry to public amusement
or recreational venues on the sole basis of their race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth. When
public employees violate the rights and liberties of individual citizens, they can be held legally
accountable in national courts.

The President of the Republic is the only exception, as he is not liable for any actions he takes or
names. Article 146 of the Constitution expressly stipulates that in such a situation, individuals
may bring legal action against the government. It should be noted, therefore, that equality as
defined by the Bangladeshi Constitution does not entail mathematical clarity or mechanical
equality. The constitution may contain provisions that allow for discrimination or classification.
On the other hand, one could argue that if a law discriminates in any way, either favorably or
unfavorably, it should be based on a true distinction with a well-defined subject matter
foundation.
i
Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala(1973) 4 SCC 225
ii
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 SCR (2) 621
iii
The Constitution of the People‌‌‍’s Republic of Bangladesh