The 'Rule of Law' is a foundational concept in modern democratic governance, signifying a system where all individuals and institutions, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. It is fundamentally based on the principle of legality and stands in direct opposition to the exercise of arbitrary powers.

The Rule of Law and Principle of Legality:

1. Supremacy of Law: The Rule of Law asserts that law is supreme, and no one, however high, is above it. This means that governmental power must be exercised within the confines of the law, not by whim or caprice.
2. Principle of Legality: This principle dictates that every governmental action must have a legal basis. Public authorities can only do what they are legally authorized to do. It requires that all decisions and actions of the state must be traceable to a specific legal provision, whether it's a statute, a regulation, or a constitutional power. This ensures predictability, certainty, and consistency in governance.
3. Equality Before Law: The Rule of Law also implies that all persons are equal before the law and are subject to the same laws and courts, without discrimination.
4. Independent Judiciary: An independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the Rule of Law, as it interprets and enforces the law, and acts as a check on executive and legislative overreach.

Opposition to Arbitrary Powers: Arbitrary power is the antithesis of the Rule of Law. It refers to the exercise of power without legal authority, without reason, or in an unfair, capricious, or discriminatory manner. The Rule of Law combats arbitrariness by:

• Requiring Legal Authority: By demanding that every state action be authorized by law, it prevents officials from acting on personal preferences or biases.
• Ensuring Predictability: When actions are governed by known laws, citizens can predict how the state will act, fostering trust and stability.
• Providing Remedies: It ensures that individuals have legal recourse against unlawful or arbitrary state actions through judicial review.

Failure to Give Reasons and Arbitrary Power: In administrative law, the question of whether a failure to give reasons for a decision amounts to exercising power arbitrarily is critical. Increasingly, courts and legal systems worldwide recognize the importance of reasoned decisions as a safeguard against arbitrariness.

Arguments for Reasons as a Check on Arbitrariness:

1. Transparency and Accountability: Providing reasons makes the decision-making process transparent. It allows the affected party and the public to understand the basis of the decision, fostering accountability on the part of the decision-maker.
2. Facilitates Judicial Review: When reasons are given, courts can effectively review the decision to ascertain whether it was based on relevant considerations, free from extraneous influences, and in accordance with the law. Without reasons, judicial review becomes difficult, often leading to the presumption of arbitrariness.
3. Ensures Fairness and Natural Justice: Giving reasons is considered an essential component of natural justice, especially when a decision adversely affects an individual's rights or legitimate expectations. It allows the aggrieved party to know why they lost and whether there are grounds for appeal.
4. Promotes Good Decision-Making: The requirement to articulate reasons compels decision-makers to think rationally, consider all relevant facts, and apply the law correctly. This internal discipline reduces the likelihood of arbitrary or hasty decisions.
5. Instills Public Confidence: Reasoned decisions enhance public confidence in the fairness and integrity of administrative processes.

Indian Legal Position: Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have consistently emphasized the importance of reasoned orders. While there might not be an absolute universal rule mandating reasons for every administrative action, the general principle is that where a decision affects rights, interests, or legitimate expectations, or where a statute requires it, reasons must be provided. The absence of reasons, especially in quasi-judicial or administrative decisions with significant impact, is often viewed as a strong indicator of arbitrariness and can lead to the quashing of the decision. The Supreme Court has held that a 'reasoned decision is a basic requirement of a sound judicial/quasi-judicial system'.

Conclusion: Indeed, the Rule of Law, by its very nature, demands that power be exercised lawfully and rationally. The principle of legality ensures that power has a legal source, and the requirement of giving reasons ensures that the exercise of that power is rational and non-arbitrary. Therefore, a failure to give reasons, particularly in decisions affecting rights, can be seen as a manifestation of arbitrary power, as it obscures the basis of the decision and hinders scrutiny, thereby undermining the fundamental tenets of the Rule of Law.