Which of them are constitutionalised in Nepal, and how?

The rule of law is the doctrine that law, not men, rules: governmental power must be exercised only through pre-established, general, publicly known legal rules, applied equally by independent courts — never by arbitrary will. Its intellectual core is the opposition to arbitrary power — power exercised at discretion, without rule, retrospect or accountability. The pedigree (one line each, for introductions): Aristotle's "rule of laws, not of men" (law as reason free from passion); Bracton (the king is under no man, but under God and the law); Magna Carta 1215 (no imprisonment save by lawful judgment — law above the king); Coke's Dr. Bonham's Case (the common law controls even Acts of Parliament — the seed of judicial review); Locke (government by settled standing laws, not extemporary arbitrary decrees); Montesquieu (separation of powers as the security for liberty); the American and French revolutions entrenching law's supremacy; Dicey's classic formulation (1885); and the twentieth century's two corrections — the welfare state requiring controlled discretion, and the totalitarian catastrophes (lawful but monstrous regimes) forcing the "thick" version with rights and democracy inside the concept. Two distinctions that open nearly every answer: Rule of law vs. rule by law: rule by law means the ruler uses law as an instrument — there are laws, and they are applied, but they bind only subjects,…