On January 8, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a groundbreaking verdict in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasol against the Union of India. This landmark judgment emphatically declared, "The Rule of law is not a shield for the privileged few. Its essence lies in the universal safeguard it provides, casting a shadow of accountability on those who would not hesitate to take lives for their own gains. The very presence of the rule of law and the looming prospect of facing consequences act as a powerful deterrent against those with no qualms about resorting to violence to achieve their objectives." This pivotal decision not only marks a significant legal precedent but also resonates with the profound impact that the rule of law can have on justice and societal order.

The preservation of individual freedom has been a enduring principle championed by our domestic judiciaries. Tracing its roots back to 1215, the Magna Carta in England declared, "No freeman shall be apprehended or detained except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." The Supreme Court of India has rejected the notion that liberty is solely confined to freedom from physical restraint. Instead, it contends that liberty encompasses the rights and privileges necessary for the organized pursuit of happiness by free individuals.

The exploration of the meaning of 'personal liberty' took center stage in the Supreme Court during the Kharak Singh case. This legal dispute arose from the constitutional challenge against the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which sanctioned surveillance through domiciliary visits and covert picketing.

On August 15, 2023, the Gujarat government released 11 convicts based on its 1992 remission policy, citing a "unanimous" recommendation from the Jail Advisory Committee (JAC) regarding their "good behavior." However, the Supreme Court criticized Gujarat for not filing a review petition to address a May 13, 2022, order from another bench, asserting that Gujarat's actions amounted to encroaching on the authority of the state of Maharashtra. The bench considered the remission orders, derived from the May 13, 2022, order, as a legal nullity.

In nullifying the Gujarat government's decision to grant remission in the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court underscored the paramount importance of personal liberty as outlined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court grappled with the dilemma of whether the rule of law should take precedence over personal liberty, questioning whether the released convicts should be re-incarcerated despite their release being deemed "unlawful" and "completely lacking in jurisdiction."

The rule of law mandates that if the State neglects its duties, the Court must step in to protect against the misuse of legal processes, which may involve inaction or arbitrary actions shielding offenders. A breach of the rule of law amounts to a denial of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court asserts that an individual is entitled to the protection of their liberty only in accordance with the law. Consequently, the question arises: can a person's liberty be safeguarded even in the face of a breach or violation of the law, or does the protection of liberty require adherence to the law?

The principle of the rule of law asserts that if the State neglects its duties, the Court will step in to ensure the supremacy of legal principles over the abuse of legal processes. Such misuse may stem from various factors, including governmental inaction or arbitrary measures aimed at protecting actual wrongdoers, as well as the failure of diverse authorities to meet statutory or other obligations outlined in procedural and penal statutes. A violation of the rule of law amounts to a denial of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In a democratic framework where the rule of law is foundational, it must be upheld and enforced, primarily by the judiciary. When it comes to enforcing the rule of law, compassion and sympathy have no bearing. Safeguarding the rule of law as a cornerstone of democracy involves the courts diligently enforcing it impartially, free from influences such as fear, favoritism, affection, or ill-will.

In the case of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivkanth Shukla, the Apex Court emphasized that the "rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrariness," echoing Justice V. Krishna Iyer's assertion that "the finest hour of the rule of law is when law disciplines life and matches promise with performance."

In the current scenario, the court declined to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution in favor of Respondent 3-13, thereby denying them the opportunity to remain out of prison. This decision appears to disregard the principles of the rule of law. Notably, Respondent No. 3 has allegedly manipulated the legal process to secure remission. Despite having already served approximately fourteen years in prison, the respondents have enjoyed periods of freedom through liberal paroles and furloughs granted at various intervals.

While the respondents forfeited their right to personal liberty during their imprisonment, the argument posits that when seeking remission, they should be physically present within the confines of the jail. This stipulation becomes particularly relevant when the respondents are not on bail or released from incarceration.

In the context of the present case, the Supreme Court underscored the paramount importance of upholding the Rule of Law. To ensure the supremacy of this doctrine, the court deemed it necessary to nullify the challenged orders of remission, accepting the inevitable repercussions. Consequently, the compromise on the personal liberty of the accused becomes a consequential sacrifice, affirming the doctrine of Rule of Law as superior to individual freedom. This stance marks a decisive conclusion, emphasizing the court's commitment to preserving the integrity of legal principles in the pursuit of justice.

By - Prapti Allagh and Ratandeep Raha