"This much we can surely say: For Aristotle, from whom Harrington derived the notion of a Government of laws and not of men that notion was not expressive of hostility to what today we call administrative discretion. Nor did it have such a meaning for Harrington." * 339. Another definition of rule of law has been given by Friedrich A. Hayek in his books: "Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of Liberty". It is much the same as that propounded by the Franks Committee in England, Report (1957) P. 6: "The rule of law stands for the view that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws. In general such decisions will be predictable, and the citizen will know where he is. On the other hand there is what is arbitrary. A decision may be made without principle, without any rules. It is therefore unpredictable, "the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law." 340. This Court said in Jaisinghani V. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703, at p. 718 = (AIR 1967 SC 1427 at p. 1434) that the rule of law from one point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules, and in general such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. 341. This exposition of the rule of law is only the aspiration for an ideal and it is not based on any down-to-earth analysis of practical problems with which a modern government is confronted. In the world of action this ideal cannot be worked out and that is the reason why this exposition has been rejected by all practical men. 342. If it is contrary to the rule of law that discretionary authority should be given to government departments or public officers, then there is no rule of law in any modern state. A judge who passes a sentence has no other guidance except a statute which says that the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to, say, a period of ten years. He must exercise considerable discretion. The High Courts and the Supreme Court overrule their precedents. What previously announced rules guide them in laying down the new precedents? A court of law decides a case of first impression; no statute governs, no precedent is applicable. It is precisely because a judge cannot find a previously announced rule that he becomes a legislator to a limited extent. All these would show that it is impossible to enunciate the rule of law which has as its basis that no decision can be made unless there is a certain rule to govern the decision. See "Discretionary Justice" by K. C. Davis. 343. Leaving aside these extravagant versions of rule of law there is a genuine concept of rule of law and that concept implies equality before the law or equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law. But, if rule of law is to be a basic structure of the Constitution, one must find specific provisions in the Constitution embodying the constituent elements of the concept. I cannot conceive of rule of law as a twinkling star up above the Constitution. To be a