tyrant if they imposed inflexible rules without allowing for changed circumstances or exceptional cases.”* 681. This Court, at least since the days of Anwar Ali Sarkar's case 1952 SCR 284 = (AIR 1952 SC 75), has consistently taken the view that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those who are grouped together from those who are left out and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the particular law. The first test may be assumed to be satisfied since there is no gainsaying that in our system of Government, the Prime Minister occupies a unique position. But what is the nexus of that uniqueness with the law which provides that the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker to the Parliament will be above all laws, that the election will be governed by no norms or standards applicable to all others who contest that election and that a election declared to be void by a High Court judgment shall be deemed to be valid, the judgment and its findings being themselves required to be deemed to be void? Such is not the doctrine of classification and no facet of that doctrine can support the favoured treatment accorded by the 39th Amendment to two high personages. It is the common man's sense of justice which sustains democracies and there is a fear that the 39th Amendment, by its impugned part, may outrage that sense of justice. Different rules may apply to different conditions and classes of men and even a single individual may, by his uniqueness, form a class by himself. But in the absence of a differentia reasonably related to the object of the law, justice must be administered with an even hand to all. 682. It follows that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329-A are arbitrary and are calculated to damage or destroy the Rule of Law. Imperfections of language hinder a precise definition of the Rule of Law as of the definition of 'Law' itself. And the Constitutional Law of 1975 has undergone many changes since A.V. Dicey, the great expounder of the rule of law, delivered his lectures as Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford, which were published in 1855 under the title, 'Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution'. But so much, I suppose, can be said with reasonable certainty that the rule of law means that the exercise of powers of government shall be conditioned by law and that subject to the exceptions to the doctrine of Equality, no one shall be exposed to the arbitrary will of the Government. Dicey gave three meanings to rule of law: Absence of arbitrary power, equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts and that the Constitution is not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the Courts. The second meaning grew out of Dicey's unsound dislike of the French Droit Administratif which he regarded “as a misfortune inflicted upon the benighted folk across the Channel”.* Indeed, so great was his influence on the thought of the day that as recently as in 1935 Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, dismissed the term “administrative law” as “continental Jargon”. The third meaning is hardly apposite in the context of our written Constitution for, in India, the Constitution is the source of all rights and obligations. We may not, therefore,