THE CONTEXT: Constitutional morality, a concept from George Grote’s work on Athenian democracy, has gained prominence in Indian jurisprudence through recent Supreme Court judgments. The idea emphasizes adherence to constitutional principles and has been applied in landmark cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), influencing debates on civil liberties, rights of minorities, and the balance between tradition and individual freedoms.
KEY ASPECTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY:
-
- Adherence to Constitutional Forms and Procedures: This entails strict compliance with the procedural framework and institutional mechanisms outlined in the Constitution. It ensures that governance operates within the bounds of legality, preventing arbitrary actions by state authorities. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar highlighted that constitutional morality requires respect for both the letter and spirit of constitutional procedures to sustain democracy.
- Respect for Rule of Law: Rule of law ensures that no individual or institution is above the law, safeguarding equality and justice. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court upheld privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, demonstrating that even state surveillance must adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Naz Foundation case (2010) distinguished between public morality and constitutional morality, emphasizing that laws must align with constitutional values rather than transient societal norms.
- Creation of Civic Culture Respecting Constitutional Offices: Constitutional morality fosters a culture where citizens and public officials respect constitutional offices and their roles in governance. The Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015) judgment stressed that democracy thrives on adherence to constitutional morality by both public officials and citizens.
- Application of Public Reason and Self-Restraint: Public reason involves justifying laws and policies based on rationality and inclusivity rather than personal or sectarian beliefs. Philosopher John Rawls argued that public reason ensures legitimacy in pluralistic societies by appealing to shared principles rather than private interests. Dr. Ambedkar emphasized self-restraint as a prerequisite for preserving freedom under a constitutional government. In the Sabarimala Case (Indian Young Lawyer’s Association v. State of Kerala, 2018), the Supreme Court invoked public reason to strike down gender-based discrimination in temple entry practices.
- Confidence in the Sanctity of Constitutional Rules During Political Debates: This aspect underscores unwavering faith in constitutional principles even amidst ideological conflicts or political crises. George Grote’s original conceptualization highlighted that constitutions endure only when citizens trust their sanctity during contentious times. Dr. Ambedkar warned against perverting constitutional forms through administrative manipulation.
IMPORTANCE IN MODERN CONTEXT:
-
- Rights of Sexual Minorities: The landmark Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) judgment decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, invoking constitutional morality to uphold individual dignity and equality. This decision emphasized the primacy of constitutional values over societal prejudices. Interpreted Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination) to include sexual orientation. It highlighted the transformative nature of the Constitution in protecting minority rights.
- Women’s Entry into Temples: The Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) case, concerning women’s entry into Sabarimala temple, showcased constitutional morality’s role in challenging discriminatory religious practices. It upheld Article 25 (freedom of religion) as applicable to all genders and emphasized that constitutional morality supersedes social morality.
- Limits of Free Speech: Constitutional morality has been instrumental in defining the contours of free speech. It balances Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Recent cases like Nipun Malhotra v. Union of India (2024) have emphasized democracy as the central value in interpreting free speech limits.
- Balance between National Security and Civil Liberties: This aspect presents one of the most complex applications of constitutional morality. It involves interpreting laws like UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) in light of fundamental rights and balancing Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) with national security imperatives. Recent debates on digital surveillance and privacy rights (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) exemplify this tension.
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY:
-
- Non-transactional adherence to the Constitution: Constitutional morality demands an unwavering commitment to constitutional principles, transcending personal or political interests. This concept was reinforced in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) judgment, where the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by interpreting Articles 14, 15, and 21 in light of constitutional morality. The Court emphasized that constitutional rights must be upheld regardless of popular sentiment or traditional beliefs.
- Acceptance of outcomes that may differ from personal beliefs: Constitutional morality requires citizens and institutions to respect constitutional interpretations even when they conflict with individual convictions. The Sabarimala temple entry case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018) exemplifies this principle. The Supreme Court ruled that preventing women’s entry violated constitutional equality, despite opposition from certain religious groups. This decision underscored the primacy of constitutional values over personal or community beliefs.
- Balancing respect for constitutional forms with the ability to critique and reform them: Constitutional morality allows for a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution while maintaining its core principles. The concept of “transformative constitutionalism” embodies this balance. In the Navtej Singh Johar case, the Court reintroduced this concept, emphasizing the Constitution’s ability to adapt to changing societal needs while preserving its fundamental values. This approach enables the judiciary to address contemporary issues within the constitutional framework.
- Emphasis on managing differences through agreed-upon procedures: Constitutional morality provides a framework for resolving conflicts through established constitutional mechanisms. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case illustrates this principle. By establishing the “basic structure doctrine,” the Supreme Court created a mechanism to balance parliamentary power with constitutional integrity. This doctrine ensures that while the Constitution can be amended, its essential features remain inviolable.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR GOVERNANCE:
-
- Framework for Balancing Reverence and Reform: The passage of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019, introducing economic criteria for reservations, showcases how constitutional morality allows for reforms within the constitutional framework to address contemporary socio-economic challenges.
- Mature Constitutionalism Accommodating Stability and Change: Established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), this doctrine ensures that while the Constitution can be amended, its essential features remain inviolable, thus maintaining stability while allowing for change.
- Alignment with Founding Fathers’ Vision: The Supreme Court’s interventions in cases related to manual scavenging and environmental protection align with the constitutional vision of social and economic justice outlined in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Civic Education and Constitutional Literacy: Introduce nationwide constitutional literacy programs to instill awareness about citizens’ rights, duties, and the Constitution’s core values. Conduct workshops and campaigns targeting diverse groups, including rural populations.
- Strengthening Institutions: Empower constitutional bodies like the Election Commission of India (ECI), Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and judiciary to function independently and effectively.
- Judicial Oversight with Defined Boundaries: Courts must act as custodians of constitutional morality while respecting the separation of powers. Judicial review is crucial for neutralizing executive excesses but must avoid overreach to maintain democratic balance.
- Balancing Tradition with Modernity: Develop frameworks that respect cultural traditions while aligning them with constitutional values. India’s diversity necessitates a nuanced approach to reconcile customary practices with modern governance principles.
- Safeguarding Minority Rights: Strengthen legal frameworks to protect minorities from majoritarian dominance while promoting inclusivity. Constitutional morality ensures equality and dignity for all citizens, irrespective of their identity.
THE CONCLUSION:
Constitutional morality is the bedrock of a progressive democracy, ensuring the delicate balance between tradition and modernity, individual rights and collective good. By fostering civic awareness, strengthening institutions, and upholding justice through inclusive governance, it paves the way for a resilient, equitable, and harmonious society aligned with the Constitution’s transformative vision.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. ‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Constitutional morality serves as a guiding framework for balancing tradition with modernity, safeguarding minority rights, and promoting democratic stability in India.” Critically analyze the concept of constitutional morality with reference to its judicial interpretations.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word
