EVOLUTION OF RULE OF LAW: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIA, IRELAND AND JAPAN

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have brought changes in how people think about the rule of law. Scholars like Brian Z. Tamanaha argue that the rule of law has become a "thick" idea, including not just legal rules but also political, moral, and institutional values. David M. Beatty describes it as a principle used across countries, guiding courts in a global way. Tom Bingham, in his important book The Rule of Law, lists eight connected ideas, such as access to the law and following international agreements, which show how the rule of law has grown in modern times. Steven G. Calabresi and Gary Lawson, however, disagree with broad definitions, saying the Constitution usually has flexible standards rather than strict rules, which makes it hard to follow Justice Scalia's idea of a "law of rules." These differences show the debate between strict legal ideas and more flexible views of the rule of law. In this context, the experiences of India, Ireland, and Japan show how the rule of law develops differently in different legal systems.In India, the Supreme Court has treated the rule of law as a "basic structure" of the Constitution, something that cannot be changed. This was shown in the case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The Court has also expanded the meaning of Article 21, which protects personal freedom, to include ideas like due process and fairness, adding rule of law values to the protection of basic rights. However, some scholars, like Upendra Baxi, say that the Court has sometimes used the rule of law in a political way, shifting between being active and cautious in its decisions.