Rule of Law Explained: Lord Bingham’s Vision and Its Relevance to Indian Constitutional Law

The Rule of Law as a Living Constitutional Ideal

Reflections Inspired by Lord Bingham — and What It Means for India

Inspired by the constitutional thought of Lord Bingham, this article explores the true meaning of the rule of law beyond rhetoric, examining its ethical foundations, practical principles, and contemporary relevance. Drawing from the sixth Sir David Williams Lecture, it analyses core rule-of-law values—legal certainty, limits on discretion, equality before law, human rights, and judicial independence—and places them in comparative perspective with Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

By linking Lord Bingham’s framework with Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and landmark Supreme Court doctrines on arbitrariness, due process, and substantive equality, the piece highlights how the rule of law functions as a living safeguard against executive excess and legislative overreach. The article offers a comparative constitutional lens for lawyers, scholars, and citizens seeking to understand why the rule of law remains central to democratic governance in both the UK and India.

Power, Liberty, and the Moral Authority of Law

Some speeches do more than explain law; they quietly reshape how we think about power, liberty, and the moral authority of the state. The sixth Sir David Williams Lecture delivered by Lord Bingham belongs firmly in that category. Far from being a dry academic exercise, it was a deeply human meditation on why law matters—and what happens when it does not.

At its heart, the lecture confronts a deceptively simple question: What do we really mean when we invoke the “rule of law”? The phrase is constantly used by courts, politicians, and commentators, yet often without precision. Lord Bingham does something rare—he gives the idea structure, substance, and ethical force.

Beyond a Slogan: The Rule of Law Defined

Rather than offering a neat statutory definition, Lord Bingham describes the rule of law as a constitutional principle in motion. Its core, he suggests, is this:

All persons and authorities, public or private, are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws that are publicly made, prospective, and administered by independent courts.

This deceptively compact idea expands into eight practical sub-rules, covering:

• Accessibility of law
• Limits on discretion
• Equality before law
• Protection of human rights
• Access to justice
• Control of executive power
• Procedural fairness
• Respect for international law

What makes the lecture compelling is its honesty: the rule of law is not automatic, nor self-executing. It survives only through constant vigilance—especially in times of fear, crisis, or political convenience.

Law Must Be Knowable, Not a Maze

One of Lord Bingham’s earliest concerns is accessibility. Laws must be clear, intelligible, and predictable. If citizens cannot reasonably understand the rules governing them, obedience becomes arbitrary rather than principled.

Indian Parallel

India faces a similar, if not more acute, challenge. With overlapping central and state statutes, frequent amendments, and sprawling delegated legislation, accessibility often suffers. Indian courts—particularly the Supreme Court—have repeatedly emphasised that vague or overbroad laws offend Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (due process). The insistence that criminal liability must be clear and foreseeable mirrors Lord Bingham’s warning against “legislative hyperactivity.”

Discretion Is Not Licence

Another powerful strand of the lecture is the rejection of unfettered discretion. Whether exercised by judges or administrators, discretion must be narrow, reasoned, and reviewable. Arbitrariness, Lord Bingham reminds us, is the antithesis of the rule of law.

Indian Parallel

This principle is deeply embedded in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. From E.P. Royappa to Maneka Gandhi, Indian courts have equated arbitrariness with inequality. Administrative discretion—especially in areas like preventive detention, immigration, or licensing—remains subject to judicial review. In this respect, Indian constitutional law aligns closely with the vision articulated in the lecture.

Equality Before Law: Not Just Formal, but Real

Lord Bingham is emphatic that laws must apply equally, save where objective differences justify differentiation. He warns that targeting non-citizens, minorities, or unpopular groups is often the first step toward systemic injustice.

Indian Parallel

India’s Constitution goes further by embedding substantive equality. Articles 14 to 17 not only prohibit discrimination but actively dismantle historical disadvantage through affirmative action. Yet, contemporary debates around citizenship, surveillance, and national security echo Lord Bingham’s caution: when the law treats “outsiders” differently without rational justification, the rule of law itself is weakened.

Comparative Perspective at a Glance

Human Rights Are Not Optional Extras

Perhaps the most philosophically charged part of the lecture is Lord Bingham’s insistence that a state which systematically violates fundamental rights cannot truly claim to uphold the rule of law, even if it follows formal legality.

Indian Parallel

This resonates powerfully with Indian constitutionalism. Fundamental rights are not decorative—they are enforceable limits on state power. The Supreme Court’s expansion of Article 21 to include dignity, privacy, and fair procedure reflects the same moral insight: legality without humanity is hollow.

Access to Justice: Law Must Be Affordable

Lord Bingham speaks with concern about cost and delay in justice delivery. A legal system that exists only for those who can afford it betrays its own foundations.

Indian Parallel

India’s legal aid framework under Article 39A, Lok Adalats, and public interest litigation are institutional attempts to address this concern. Yet delays and costs remain formidable. The challenge identified in the lecture—making justice real rather than theoretical—is one India continues to grapple with daily.

• Article 39A and state-funded legal aid
• Lok Adalats for alternative dispute resolution
• Public Interest Litigation as a tool for access

Executive Power Under Law, Not Above It

A recurring theme is the necessity of judicial control over executive action, especially during national security crises. History, Lord Bingham cautions, shows that governments tend to overreach when fear dominates reason.

Indian Parallel

Indian courts have oscillated between deference and assertiveness, from the Emergency era to contemporary security legislation. The lesson from the lecture is clear: constitutional courage is most needed when it is least comfortable.

International Law and Constitutional Conscience

Lord Bingham’s final sub-rule—that states must respect their international obligations—underscores a global vision of legality. The rule of law, he argues, does not stop at national borders.

Indian Parallel

India follows a dualist approach, yet courts increasingly interpret domestic law in harmony with international norms, especially in human rights cases. This quiet convergence reflects a shared understanding that sovereignty and legality are not enemies.

A Shared Constitutional Ethos

What ultimately unites Lord Bingham’s vision and Indian constitutional thought is an unspoken social compact: citizens accept legal restraint in return for lawful, restrained governance. When either side breaks this bargain, legitimacy erodes.

The lecture ends not with triumph, but with responsibility. Lawyers, judges, and scholars are not mere technicians. They are custodians of what Lord Bingham memorably describes as “an almost sacred flame.”

In both the UK and India, that flame burns brightest when law serves not power—but people.

Related Article:

• Lord Jonathan Sumption on the American Constitution: Why Checks and Balances Are Failing Democracy
   

Lawyers In United Kingdom