CURRENT AFFAIRS | MARCH 2026
Prelims: Dicey’s Rule of Law, Droit Administratif, Maurice Hauriou, Administrative Law
Mains: GS Paper II (Governance — Administrative Law, Rule of Law), GS Paper IV (Ethics — Integrity in Administration)
Judicial Services Relevance: Art. 14 (Rule of Law foundation); Art. 226/227 (judicial review of administrative action); Dicey’s three postulates; administrative tribunals vs ordinary courts; natural justice principles
A.V. Dicey and the Rule of Law: Foundational Doctrine
Albert Venn Dicey’s formulation of the Rule of Law, articulated in his seminal work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), remains the foundational reference point for constitutional governance in common law jurisdictions.
- Supremacy of Law: No person shall be punished except for a breach of law established through ordinary legal processes before ordinary courts. Prohibits arbitrary governmental action
- Equality Before Law: Every person, regardless of rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law and answerable to ordinary tribunals. No special privileges for governmental status
- Predominance of Legal Spirit: Constitutional principles are not the source but the consequence of individual rights as determined by courts
Dicey’s Critique of Droit Administratif
Dicey’s most contested contribution was his critique of the French system of droit administratif — the body of administrative law administered by separate administrative courts (tribunaux administratifs) rather than ordinary courts. Dicey viewed this system as fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law because it:
- Created a separate legal regime for state officials
- Insulated officials from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts
- Violated the equality principle by treating government servants differently
- Administrative courts, staffed by officials rather than independent judges, lacked institutional independence
Maurice Hauriou and the French Response
Maurice Hauriou, the French jurist, defended the droit administratif system by arguing that:
- Administrative courts developed specialized expertise in reviewing government action
- The Conseil d’Etat provided more effective remedies against administrative abuse than English courts
- Separation of administrative and judicial functions ensured institutional specialization
- The French system actually provided stronger accountability for government officials
Supremacy | Equality | Predominance of Legal Spirit
Think: “SEP” — September of law: the season when all are equal before the harvest of justice
Indian Position: A Hybrid Approach
Indian courts have refined and expanded Dicey’s principles to suit the demands of a written constitution and a welfare state. India adopted a hybrid approach:
- Article 14 embodies Dicey’s equality principle but permits reasonable classification
- Administrative tribunals (CAT, SAT, NGT, NCLAT) exist alongside ordinary courts — a partial droit administratif model
- Article 226/227 preserves High Court supervisory jurisdiction over all tribunals
- The L. Chandra Kumar v. UoI (1997) decision confirmed that judicial review by High Courts under Art. 226/227 is part of the basic structure
This is a CORE topic for judicial services. Key questions: (1) Compare Dicey’s Rule of Law with the Indian constitutional scheme under Art. 14, 226, 227, 300A. (2) How does L. Chandra Kumar (1997) reconcile administrative tribunals with Dicey’s equality postulate? (3) Is India’s administrative tribunal system closer to Dicey or Hauriou? (4) Discuss the significance of “predominance of legal spirit” in the context of Indian judicial activism.
Source: UPSC Essentials, The Indian Express — March 2026
Practice Quiz
Test your understanding with these 10 MCQs:
Practice Quiz — 10 Judiciary Exam-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
