Understanding Of Rule Of Law

Rule of law simply means that government and its officials together with private citizens must under the law. The rational behind the rule of law is to control the exercise od public power by ensuring that it is exercised strictly within legal limits as such the courts play a central role in upholding the rule of law. The core meaning of rule of law is it is not a legal concept but it is philosophy which means its and idea of institutional morality. Rule of law conveys the idea of a government is not under men but under laws. In practical terms, rule of laws is often used to upon lawlessness.

AV Dicey first expounded the definition of rule of law in 1885. AV Dicey first expounded the definition of rule of law in 1885. There was 3 distinct conceptions of Dicey. The first limp will be “ No one to be punished except for conduct which represents a clear breach of law”. This can be seen in the case of ADT v UK (2000). The ECtHR in ADT v UK (2000) held that a gross indecency conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was an unreasonable interference with the right to privacy for private life. The acts took place in the applicant ‘s home, and there was no physical harm involved. Rule of law protects the individual which will not allow the government to design arbitrary laws. For example of arbitrary law that took place will be the Internal Security Act 1960 that was been used in Malaysia during the past which allowed detention without trails for 2 years. [1: ADT v UK (2000)]

“The administration is in the last phases of overhauling the Inner Security Act. Home Pastor Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein has expressed that ISA alterations will spin around five zones – the length of confinement, rights and treatment of prisoners and their families, the intensity of the Home Priest, the utilization of ISA for political reasons and detainment without preliminary. In overhauling the ISA, the administration met with key partners to talk about changes. [2: En.wikipedia.org. 2020. Internal Security Act 1960. [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 June 2020].]

Several human rights groups and opposition political parties have strongly criticized the act because of the perceived punitive aspects of the ISA and have called for its repeal. Nonetheless, there was scepticisms about the pace and uncertainty of the repeal after the pledge to repeal the ISA made in September 2011. (Internal Security Act 1960, 2020)

However in the second limb of AV Dicey was stated “No man is above the law- whatever is his rank or condition, is to the ordinary law of realm and amendable to the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals”. To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you ever so high, that law is above you.” – Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers (1977). The argument that there is no power to enforce the law by injunction or contempt proceedings against a minister is his official capacity would, if upheld, establish the proposition that the executive obey law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity, a proposition which would reverse the result of civil war. In M v Home Office (1994), the Home Secretary was held responsible for contempt of court for his failure to comply with a High Court order that he order the return of Zairian teacher seeking refugee status to UK. [3: M v Home Office (1994)]

Furthermore, in the third limb of AV Dicey “General principles of the constitution… are with us as a result to judicial decisions determining the rights of private person in particular case brought before the courts”. In a simplified manner AV Dicey belief that the common law affords greater protection to the citizens than a written constitution. The reference case for this will be Entick v Carrington. The Bill of Rights 1689 declared that the monarchy was subject to law and thus forced the Crown to rule by Parliament and not by proclamations as before. In this case people have the right to be free from arbitrary interference in their private affairs. The States were unable to claim search powers unless the law allowed. [4: Entick v Carrington]

In 2010 Lord ‘Tom’ Bingham, one of the most distinguished jurists in the United Kingdom in the last hundred years, published the seminal work ‘The rule of law’. Lord Bingham ‘s book was based on an academic paper he delivered in 2006 four years earlier, in which he looked at what the rule of law meant exactly. In his book of 2010 Lord Bingham described the central rule of law concept as:

“that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts.” [5: GOV.UK. 2020. The Rule Of Law And The Prosecutor. [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 June 2020].]

He proceeded to layout standards which he saw just like the key fixings important to help that point. In a word these were:

1. The law must be open, coherent, clear and unsurprising.
2. Questions of legitimate right and obligation ought to conventionally be settled by the activity of the law and not the activity of caution.
3. Laws ought to apply similarly to all.
4. Ministers and open authorities must exercise the forces gave in accordance with some basic honesty, decently, for the reasons for which they were given – sensibly and without surpassing the restrictions of such powers.
5. The law must bear the cost of satisfactory security of essential Human Rights.
6. The state must give a method of settling debates which the gatherings can’t themselves resolve. (The rule of law and the prosecutor, 2020)