FROM DICEY TO MANEKA GANDHI TRANSFORMATION OF THE RULE OF LAW IN INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

This paper examines the transformation of the rule of law in Indian administrative law from A.V. Dicey's influential principles to the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). It traces the evolution of substantive due process and judicial review, highlighting how courts have shaped governance and rights protection. The study analyses key judicial interventions, comparing pre- and post-Maneka Gandhi eras, and explores implications for administrative discretion and accountability. The pre-Maneka Gandhi era was marked by Dicey's principles of the rule of law, emphasizing formal justice and limited judicial review. However, Maneka Gandhi marked a paradigm shift, with the Supreme Court asserting its power to review administrative actions on grounds of reasonableness and fairness. This led to the emergence of substantive due process, enabling courts to scrutinise the content of laws and administrative actions. The study critically examines this evolution, highlighting the tension between administrative discretion and individual rights. It argues that while Maneka Gandhi expanded judicial review, it also created challenges for governance and the implementation of policy. The paper concludes by exploring the current state of the rule of law in India, assessing the impact of judicial activism on administrative law and governance. The research adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology, relying on secondary sources, including constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles. By examining the evolution of substantive due process, this study provides insights into the complex dynamics between administrative power and individual rights in India.