The relation between the State and its citizen is the binding feature that makes men morally abiding when the sovereign, through the instrument of law, imposes restriction upon his rights and freedom. It is the obligation of the State to protect its citizen’s life, liberty and property in return for the latter’s subjugation to the rules and policies framed by the former. India, a country with defined constitutional principles stipulates the rights of its citizens under the Part – III of the Constitution. These rights are available to the people along with certain reasonable restrictions, which are again stipulated by the State itself. The mutual obligation between men and his State gives rises to the constant evolution of the ever-expanding concept of the Rule of Law.
The rights availed by the people under the constitution is given wider interpretations at par with the social transformations taking place with changing times. It is an undeniable fact that rights and liberties advance with the advancement of the State’s political policies. The Rights are expanded and become more inclusive and contemporary over time. This is achieved either by way of precedential outcomes or through constitutional amendments. In recent developments, there have been several conflicting situations between the people and the State. The State and Judicial interventions upon people’s rights and liberties have sometimes not gone down well with the people’s sentiments. It was clearly witnessed in the “Sabarimala” case or the “Contempt of Court” case, wherein public outcry was seen against the Judicial and Political intervention upon the Rule of Law. The author aims to study on up to what extent such interventions are permissible under the law established; and how people’s non-abidance of these newly laid restrictions against their rights pave way for the new generation’s wider prospect of Rule of Law.