What is the Supremacy of Law and Why Does it Matter?

• (i) absence of arbitrary power;
• (ii) equality before the law, and
• (iii) rights of citizens.

Here are a few definitions of the supremacy of law:

(a) The supremacy of law refers to the idea that the law is the highest authority in a society, and that all individuals and institutions, including the government and its officials, must comply with the law and are subject to its authority." (Edward J. Eberle)

(b) The supremacy of law is a fundamental principle of many legal systems, which holds that the law is the supreme authority in a society and that all individuals and institutions, including the government, must abide by it. It is a key component of the rule of law, which requires that laws be applied consistently and impartially and that legal processes be fair and accessible to all." (Princeton University)

(c) The supremacy of law is the principle that the law is the highest authority in a society and that all individuals and institutions, including the government, must abide by it. It is a fundamental principle of many legal systems and is essential for ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and that their rights are protected." (Oxford University Press)

(d) The supremacy of law is the idea that the law is the highest authority in a society and that all individuals and institutions, including the government, must adhere to it. This principle is essential for maintaining order and stability in a society and for protecting the rights of individuals." (American Bar Association)

(e) The supremacy of law is the principle that the law is the highest authority in a society and that all individuals and institutions, including the government, must comply with it. This principle is essential for ensuring that the legal system is fair, just, and accountable, and for protecting the rights of individuals." (United Nations Development Programme)

Philosophical Perspectives on the Supremacy of Law

Throughout history, influential philosophers and legal theorists have shaped the modern understanding of the supremacy of law—also known as the rule of law. Their works stress that the law must safeguard against arbitrary authority, protect individual rights, and ensure governance rooted in fairness, equality, and accountability.

John Locke – Limiting Arbitrary Power

In his seminal work, Second Treatise of Government (1690), John Locke argued that the rule of law is essential to protect individuals from the arbitrary power of rulers. He maintained that the law should be supreme over all actions of government and that rulers must be subject to the same laws as their citizens. For Locke, lawful governance was a mutual compact between the people and their leaders, ensuring that political power was exercised only within legal boundaries.

Montesquieu – Separation of Powers

In his influential treatise, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu emphasized that the separation of powers—dividing authority into legislative, executive, and judicial branches—is crucial to preserving the rule of law. He argued that when these branches remain independent and balanced, no single authority can dominate or undermine the law. This framework remains a cornerstone of many modern constitutions.

John Rawls – Fairness and Equality

In his groundbreaking work, A Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls presented the rule of law as a key instrument for achieving a just and fair society. He asserted that laws must be designed and applied so that they treat all members of society equally, protecting their fundamental rights regardless of status or power. Rawls saw the rule of law as a mechanism for upholding both liberty and equality.

Ronald Dworkin – Rights as the Foundation of Law

In A Matter of Principle (1985), Ronald Dworkin argued that the rule of law rests on the recognition of fundamental individual rights that the government is bound to respect. He insisted that laws should not merely regulate conduct but also protect and promote human dignity. For Dworkin, consistency and fairness in the application of laws were essential to maintaining public trust in the legal system.

Together, these thinkers reinforce the idea that the supremacy of law is more than a legal doctrine—it is a moral and political commitment to justice, equality, and the protection of rights for all members of society.

Historical Evolution of the Supremacy of Law

The supremacy of law—often referred to as the rule of law—has deep roots in human civilization, shaping governance and justice for centuries. Its origins can be traced back to ancient Rome, where codified laws were applied equally to all citizens, forming the backbone of the Roman Republic. This early commitment to legal equality laid the foundation for future legal systems worldwide.

During the Middle Ages, the principle of the rule of law became intertwined with the authority of monarchs and the influence of the Church. While legal protections existed, they were often limited by the prevailing power structures of the time. It was not until the Enlightenment era that the supremacy of law took on a more modern and democratic character. Thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu championed the separation of powers, constitutional governance, and the idea that no authority—whether royal or governmental—should be above the law.

The principle reached new heights during the American and French Revolutions, when written constitutions and declarations of rights became powerful tools to safeguard liberty. The United States Constitution, for example, enshrined the supremacy of law by dividing governmental powers and ensuring that no branch could exceed its lawful authority. These milestones cemented the rule of law as a universal safeguard against tyranny, ensuring equality, accountability, and justice for all.

Importance of the Supremacy of Law

One of the most significant benefits of the supremacy of law is that it limits governmental and institutional power. By subjecting all authorities to the same legal standards as citizens it prevents the abuse of power and protects people from arbitrary or discriminatory actions. This safeguard acts as a barrier against tyranny and strengthens the foundations of democracy.

The supremacy of law also serves as a guarantee of fairness and justice. When laws are applied equally to everyone—regardless of status, wealth, or political influence—they protect fundamental rights and uphold human dignity. This uniformity fosters confidence in the legal system, assuring citizens that disputes will be resolved through fair, impartial, and transparent proceedings.

Beyond protecting rights, the supremacy of law plays a vital role in maintaining social order and stability. When laws are respected and consistently enforced, people feel safer and more secure in their communities. This sense of security encourages cooperation, civic responsibility, and mutual trust—key ingredients for a harmonious society.

In essence, the supremacy of law is not just a legal doctrine; it is the foundation of justice, stability, and equality. It ensures that societies remain orderly, rights are safeguarded, and governments operate within lawful limits. This is why it stands as a guiding principle in constitutions and legal systems across the world.

• Ensures Accountability: Holds individuals, public officials, and institutions answerable for their actions under the law.
• Limits Abuse of Power: Prevents arbitrary or discriminatory decisions by subjecting all authorities to the same legal standards.
• Promotes Fairness and Justice: Guarantees equal treatment and protection of rights for all members of society.
• Strengthens Public Trust: Assures citizens that disputes will be resolved through fair, impartial, and transparent processes.
• Maintains Social Order: Creates a safe, secure environment where communities can thrive.

Beyond protecting rights, the supremacy of law plays a vital role in maintaining social order and stability. When laws are respected and consistently enforced, people feel safer and more secure in their communities. This sense of security encourages cooperation, civic responsibility, and mutual trust—key ingredients for a harmonious society.

In essence, the supremacy of law is not just a legal doctrine; it is the foundation of justice, stability, and equality. It ensures that societies remain orderly, rights are safeguarded, and governments operate within lawful limits. This is why it stands as a guiding principle in constitutions and legal systems across the world.

Challenges to the Supremacy of Law

While the supremacy of law is essential for justice, equality, and stable governance, it is vulnerable to erosion in real-world settings.

1. Corruption and Abuse of Authority

Corruption undermines public trust and distorts justice. In Pakistan, the Panama Papers Case (Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, PLD 2017 SC 265) demonstrated how judicial intervention can hold political leaders accountable for undeclared assets. Similarly, in India, the Coal Allocation Scam (2012) exposed how political influence could bypass fair legal processes, eroding the rule of law.

2. Misuse of Emergency Powers

Emergency powers, though intended for public protection, can be abused. In the UK, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513, the House of Lords reaffirmed that executive powers must remain within statutory limits even during crises. In the U.S., Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld the wartime internment of Japanese Americans—later acknowledged as a grave injustice and a cautionary tale of unchecked executive authority.

3. Erosion of Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is vital for impartial justice. In the UK case R (Miller) v. Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, the Supreme Court declared the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament unlawful, reinforcing that no political leader is above the law. In Pakistan, the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry restoration case (2009) highlighted how judicial independence can be defended even against executive resistance.

4. Overreach in Judicial Commentary

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703, India), the Supreme Court held that courts must avoid sweeping or unnecessary remarks, and reaffirmed the High Courts’ inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC to expunge such comments. This principle aligns with the UK’s longstanding tradition that judicial pronouncements must be precise and relevant to the matter at hand.

5. Selective Enforcement of Laws

Laws must be enforced equally. In the U.S. case Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Supreme Court ruled that a law neutral on its face but applied in a discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Britain, Entick v. Carrington (1765) established that government officials cannot act beyond the authority granted by law—a principle still foundational to the rule of law today.

“The rule of law is the foundation of freedom. It gives the individual the power to know and predict the law, and it gives the state the power to know and predict its own limits.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Case Laws Illustrating the Supremacy of Law

There have been numerous cases throughout history that demonstrate the importance of the supremacy of law. 

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States established its authority to declare federal laws unconstitutional. This landmark case arose from a dispute over the appointment of William Marbury as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.

Marbury argued that the Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus, a court order requiring an official to perform a duty, to force Secretary of State James Madison to issue his commission as a justice of the peace. However, the Court ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court the authority to issue such writs was unconstitutional, as it exceeded the powers granted to the Court by the Constitution.

This decision established the principle of judicial review, which holds that the courts have the power to interpret and apply the law and to ensure that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution. The principle of judicial review is a key aspect of the supremacy of law, as it allows the courts to act as a check on the powers of the other branches of government and to ensure that the law is followed.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

This landmark case involved the segregation of public schools in the United States and resulted in the Supreme Court declaring segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

This case involved a challenge to a Texas law that made abortion illegal, except to save the life of the mother. The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated a woman's right to privacy and was therefore unconstitutional.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

This case involved the arrest and interrogation of Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with kidnapping and rape. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's constitutional rights had been violated, as he had not been informed of his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present during questioning.

Cooper v. Aaron (United States, 1958):

This case upheld the principle of judicial supremacy, which means that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts and government officials in the United States. This case reaffirmed the principle established in Marbury v. Madison that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Entick v. Carrington (United Kingdom, 1765):

This case established the principle that the law is supreme over the actions of the government and its officials in the United Kingdom. It held that the government cannot act outside of the law or use its powers to violate an individual's rights.

R v. Oakes (Canada, 1986):

This case established the principle that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian Constitution, is the supreme law of Canada. It held that any law that is inconsistent with the Charter is of no force or effect.

Kelsen v. Federal Republic of Austria (European Court of Human Rights, 1955):

This case established the principle that the European Convention on Human Rights is the supreme law of the member states of the Council of Europe. It held that national laws must be consistent with the Convention and that individuals have the right to seek the protection of their rights under the Convention in national courts.

2022  PLC(CS)  859 SUPREME-COURT of Pakistan

Principles of natural justice were firmly established and deeply rooted in the judicial conscience and were entrenched and embedded in every decision-making function either judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative, and as a fundamental rule of law, no decision must be taken affecting the right of any person without first being informed of the case and afforded an ample opportunity of defense.