Skip to main content

India has 'better rule of law' than Pakistan, China, Russia, ranks 66th of 113 nations

 
In the latest rule of law index (RLI), worked out by World Justice Project (WJP), a Washington-DC based independent, multidisciplinary organization, has ranked India 66th among 113 countries it has analyzed, far better than all neighouring countries except Nepal.
The nearly 300-page report ranks Pakistan 106th, Bangladesh 103rd, Sri Lanka 68th, Nepal 63rd, and Myanmar 98th.Among the “comparable” BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries, India ranks better than two of the five – thus, Brazil ranks 52nd, Russia 92nd, China 80th, and South Africa 43rd.
The Scandinavian ranks the best, with Denmark topping with No 1, followed by Norway, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands. Then come Germany, Austria, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom. The United States ranks 18th, while Canada ranks 12th and Australia 11th.
Calculated on a scale of 1, India’s RLI is 0.51.
“The country scores and rankings for the WJP Rule of Law Index 2016 are derived from more than 110,000 households and 2,700 expert surveys in 113 countries and jurisdictions”, says the report.
It further says, “Scores and rankings organized around eight themes: constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.
It adds, “A ninth factor, informal justice, is measured but not included in aggregated scores and rankings.”
While India does quite well in the constraints on government powers factor, ranking 35th, suggesting it has effective of the “institutional checks on government power by the legislature, the judiciary, and independent auditing and review agencies”, it does falters in regulatory enforcement, ranking a poor 104th.
India's ranking across eight factors
The regulatory enforcement factor measures the extent to which regulations are effectively implemented and enforced without improper influence by public officials or private interests.
India also does quite well in open government factor, ranking 28th, which means that basic laws and information in legal rights are publicized, and the quality of information published by the government.
It falters in the absence of corruption factor, which considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. Here, it ranks 69th.
In the fundamental rights factor, India ranks 81st, suggesting, there is failure to protect fundamental human rights, including effective enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection, right to life and security of the person, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of belief and religion, the right to privacy, freedom of assembly and association, and so on.
In the order and security facto, which measures threats to order and security, including conventional crime, political violence, and violence as a means to redress personal grievances, India again ranks a poor 104th.
In the civil justice factor, which measures whether it is the civil justice system is accessible and affordable, free of discrimination, corruption, and improper influence by public officials, India ranks 93rd. And, in criminal justice factor, which measures criminal investigation, adjudication, and correctional systems, India ranks 71st.
According to the report, “Effective rule of law reduces corruption, combats poverty and disease, and protects people from injustices large and small. It is the foundation for communities of peace, opportunity, and equity – underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.”

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.