One of the fundamental standards of the English constitution is the administer of law. This
convention is acknowledged in the constitution of U.S.A. and furthermore in the constitution of Bangladesh. Presently a days administer of law is a standout amongst the most talked about subjects of creating nations. Created nations and benefactor organizations dependably educate the creating nations for practical improvement and great administration. All things considered feasible improvement and great administration generally relies upon the best possible utilization of lead of law. Laws are made for the
welfare of the general population, to get an adjust society, a concordance between the 2
clashing powers in the public arena. One of the prime objects of making laws is to
keep up lawfulness in the public eye, a serene situation for the advance of
the general population. In obvious and genuine sense there is no manage of law in Bangladesh today.
Law in Bangladesh takes after a course of specific and optional application. Organization and techniques required for guaranteeing standard of law moreover are no viable in the nation.
Idea OF THE RULE OF LAW
The term ‘Govern of Law’ is gotten from the French expression ‘La Principe de
Lawfulness’ (the guideline of legitimateness) which referse to an administration in view of
standards of law and not of men. In this sense the idea of ‘La Principe de
Lawfulness’ was against subjective forces. The control of law is old starting point.
In thirteenth century Bracton, a judge in the rule of Henry III wrote”The
ruler himself should be liable to God what’s more, the law, since law makes him lord.”
Edward Coke is said to be the originator of this idea, when he said that
the lord must be under God and law and in this manner vindicated the matchless quality of
law over the demands of the officials. Teacher A.V. Sketchy later
created on this idea in his exemplary book ‘The Law Of The Constitution.’
distributed in the year 1885.3 Dicey’s idea of the manage of law pondered
the nonappearance of wide powers in the hands of government authorities. Agreeing
to him wherever there is befouling there is space for arbitrainess.
The manage of law is a reasonable and dynamic idea and like numerous other such
ideas, isn’t prepared to do any correct definition. Its most straightforward importance is that everything must be finished by law, however in that sense it gives nearly nothing
comfort unless it likewise implies that the law must not give the legislature as well
much power. The control of law is against the govern of subjective power.
The essential significance of decide of law is that the ruler and the ruled must be subject
to law and nobody is exempt from the rules that everyone else follows and thus responsible under the law. It infers the amazingness of law and the acknowledgment that the law to be law can not be fanciful.
DICEY’S THEORY OF RULE OF LAW
As indicated by Dicey, the govern of law is one of the key standards of
the English constitution he gave three implications of the idea of administer of law.
1. Nonappearance of Arbitrary Power or Supremacy of Law Clarify the primary rule, Dicey states that lead of law implies the supreme amazingness or transcendence of customary law instead of the impact of subjective power or wide optional power. As indicated by him Englishmen were governed by the law and by the law alone; a man with us might be rebuffed for break of law, however can be rebuffed to no end els. In this sense the run the show of law is appeared differently in relation to each arrangement of government in view of the activity by individual in specialist of wide subjective or optional forces of limitation.
2. Correspondence Before Law Control of law, in the second guideline, implies the fairness of law or equivalent subjection of all classes to the common tradition that must be adhered to managed by the common law courts. In this sense decide of law passes on that no man is above the law; that authorities like private subjects are under an obligation to comply with the same law, and there can be no Special court or authoritative council for the state authorities.
3. Constitution is the consequence of the conventional tradition that must be adhered to
The run of law in conclusion implies that the general standards of the constitution
are the consequence of legal choice of the courts in England. In numerous nations
right, for example, ideal to individual freedom, flexibility from capture, opportunity to hold
open gathering are ensured by a composed constitution; in England, it isn’t
so. Those rights are the aftereffect of legal choices in solid cases which
have really emerged between the gatherings. The constitution isn’t the source
be that as it may, the result of the privileges of the people. Hence, sketchy stressed
the part of the courtrooms as gruantors of freedom.
Feedback OF DICEY’S THEORY OF RULE OF LAW
Unpredictable built up the substance of his proposition by peeping from a foggy England into a bright France. a few assaults have been mounted against Dicey’s hypothesis of administer of law. As to his first guideline he says that there would be no self-assertive or optional power. Be that as it may, even in Dicey’s lifetime there were both subjective and optional power in Britain. Preventive detainment, crisis circumstance, necessary procurement of products what’s more, properties, coordinate implementation of managerial choice and so forth are the best case of activity of subjective power. Again there is a refinement between subjective power and optional power which uncertain neglected to follow.
The second guideline of govern of law sketchy says that there ought to be equity
under the watchful eye of law and all are agreeable to customary courts of the land. Yet, this guideline has numerous special cases since correspondence under the steady gaze of law isn’t conceivable in each case. The lord or the leader of the state in different nations are safe from both criminal and common activity, judges are resistant from individual
obligation regarding their official demonstrations regardless of whether they may have acted past their ward however not intentionally. Once more, Dicey says that there ought to be no different managerial courts as in French ‘Droit Administratif.’ In truth Dicey misconstrued the genuine nature of the French ‘Droit administratif.’ The French framework in numerous regard ended up being more compelling in controlling the authoritative forces than the customary law framework.
As respects his third standard Dicey says that the crucial right and
libertis radiate from legal choices. In any case, this is uneven view. Since
in England individuals have numerous rights through the law of parliament and
contracts issued by the rulers. Different open specialists, the Crown, the
Place of Parliament, the court, the regulatory specialists have powers
what’s more, obligations and a large portion of these are controlled by statute not by the courts So it has been obvious from the above dialog that the nullification of
optional power isn’t conceivable completely and furthermore balance under the watchful eye of law isn’t conceivable for each situation. His third standard was deserted since generally other nations on the planet have a bill of rights on some depiction. So the
idea of control of law as propounded by Dicey necessities alteration.
In spite of the fact that it has turned into a form to scrutinize Dicey’s hypothesis of manage of law-the three vital things nonattendance of self-assertive power, certification of natives right what’s more, the uniformity under the watchful eye of law over which he made accentuation are all around perceived as the center of customary hypothesis of lead of law.
Lead OF LAW IN TRUE AND MODERN SENSE
Today Dicey’s hypothesis of lead of law can’t be acknowledged in its totality. The
present day idea of the govern of law is genuinely wide and in this manner sets up an
perfect for any administration to accomplish. This idea was created by the 6
Worldwide Commission of Jurists. Known as Delhi Declaration, 1959
which was last on affirmed at logos in 1961. As per this plan – “the decide of law infers
that the elements of the administration in a free society ought to be so
practiced as to make conditions in which the respect of man as an individual is maintained.
This nobility requires not just the acknowledgment of certain common or political rights yet in addition production of certain political, social, practical, instructive and social conditions
which are basic to the full improvement of his identity”.
As indicated by Davis, there are seven vital implications of the term ‘Lead of
law: (1) peace; (2) settled tenets; (3) end of tact; (4) due procedure of law or decency; (5) characteristic law or recognition of the standards of regular equity; (6) inclination for judges and customary courtrooms to official specialists and regulatory councils; and (7) Judicial audit of managerial activities.
So at last it might effectively be said that control of law does not mean and can’t
mean any legislature under any law. It implies the manage by a majority rule lawa
law which is passed in a fairly chosen parliament after sufficient civil argument and discourse. Similarly, Sir Ivor Jennings says – “In legitimate sense run of law infers a law based framework, a sacred government where feedback of the legislature isn’t just reasonable yet additionally a positive legitimacy and where parties in light of contending governmental issues or interests are permitted as well as supported. Where this exist alternate outcomes of lead of law must take after”.
Lead OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF BANGLADESH
The lead of law is an essential component of the constitution of Bangladesh. It has
been swore in the introduction to the constitution of Bangladesh that –
“It might be basic point of the state to acknowledge through the vote based process a
communist society, free from abuse – a general public in which the administer of law, basic
human rights and flexibility, uniformity and equity, political financial and social, will be
secured for all residents.”
As per this promise the accompanying positive arrangements for administer of law have been joined in the constitution: Article 27 ensures that all subjects are equivalent under the watchful eye of law and are qualified for level with assurance of law. Article 31 ensures that to appreciate the assurance of the law, and to be dealt with as per law, is the unavoidable.