Answer

Constitutional morality refers to the adherence to constitutional principles, rule of law, and institutional integrity while balancing individual rights and societal norms. Rooted in George Grote’s idea of reverence for constitutional forms, it guides the Supreme Court of India. However, its subjective interpretation raises concerns about judicial overreach and societal acceptance

The Supreme Court’s Use of ‘Constitutional Morality’ in Rights-Based Issues

• Striking Down Unconstitutional Laws: The Supreme Court has invoked constitutional morality to strike down laws that violate fundamental rights, ensuring legal provisions align with the Constitution’s progressive spirit.
  For example: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized Section 377, recognizing LGBTQ+ rights by upholding individual dignity over outdated public morality.
• Ensuring Gender Equality: The Court has used constitutional morality to uphold women’s rights, dismantling gender-discriminatory practices based on societal traditions and religious beliefs.
  For example: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) allowed women entry into Sabarimala Temple, affirming gender equality over patriarchal religious customs.
• Protecting Marital Autonomy: By emphasizing constitutional morality, the Court has safeguarded individual choice in marriage, overriding societal or religious norms that limit autonomy.
  For example: Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) upheld Hadiya’s right to marry a person of her choice, rejecting forced state intervention in personal decisions.
• Expanding Freedom of Expression: The Court has applied constitutional morality to protect speech, ensuring legal restrictions align with constitutional principles rather than majoritarian sentiments.
  For example: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, preventing its misuse to suppress dissent and free speech.
• Upholding Personal Liberty: Constitutional morality has guided the Court in protecting privacy, ensuring individual rights are not compromised under broad interpretations of state power.
  For example: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) declared privacy a fundamental right, safeguarding personal freedoms from unwarranted state surveillance.

Positive Role in Balancing Social Morality and Individual Rights

• Neutralizing Majoritarian Morality: By prioritizing constitutional values, the Court has ensured minority rights are upheld, preventing laws based on shifting public sentiments.
• Reconciling Faith and Equality: The Court has used constitutional morality to balance religious freedoms with the right to equality, ensuring faith-based practices do not violate fundamental rights.
• Curtailing Arbitrary State Action: It prevents state overreach in personal freedoms by ensuring laws adhere to constitutional principles rather than populist pressures.
  For example: Puttaswamy Judgment (2017) limited the government’s power to collect personal data without consent, securing privacy rights.
• Strengthening Democratic Values: By emphasizing rule of law, the Court prevents misuse of power and reinforces constitutional governance over mob rule or political expediency.
  For example: Shreya Singhal Case (2015) ensured laws restricting free speech were scrutinized for their constitutionality, preventing arbitrary criminalization.
• Balancing Reform and Stability: Constitutional morality ensures legal continuity and evolution, respecting traditions while reforming practices that contradict fundamental rights.
  For example: Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized adultery, ensuring marriage is based on equality rather than outdated gender biases.

Limitations In Balancing Social Morality And Individual Rights 

• Judicial Overreach Concerns: Courts may be seen as exceeding their mandate by invalidating laws based on constitutional morality, bypassing legislative authority.
  For example: Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018) allowed women of all ages to enter the temple, but strong public opposition led to legal and political contestations, questioning judicial overreach.
• Ambiguity in Application: The lack of a precise definition allows subjective judicial interpretations, leading to inconsistent verdicts and uncertainty in rights adjudication.
  For example: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized same-sex relationships, but subsequent rulings, like the marriage equality case (2023), denied same-sex marriage, showing inconsistency in rights interpretation.
• Conflict with Religious Rights: Applying constitutional morality can override religious customs, creating tensions between legal mandates and religious freedoms.
• Limited Social Acceptance: Legal recognition does not always translate into societal acceptance, leading to resistance and ineffective implementation of progressive judgments.
  For example: Despite the Triple Talaq Case (2019) declaring instant triple talaq unconstitutional, reports indicate its continued practice in some communities, reflecting societal resistance.
• State’s Reluctance in Enforcement: The executive may hesitate in enforcing judgments based on constitutional morality due to political and social pressures.

Way ahead

• Clearer Judicial Framework: Courts should develop structured guidelines on applying constitutional morality to ensure consistency and avoid subjective interpretations.
  For example: A well-defined test, similar to the basic structure doctrine, could prevent contradictions seen in cases like Navtej Singh Johar (2018).
• Legislative Backing for Reforms: Laws passed by Parliament on contentious issues can reinforce constitutional morality, ensuring broader legitimacy and acceptance.
  For example: The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 provided legal backing for trans rights after NALSA v. Union of India (2014) recognized self-identification of gender.
• Public Engagement and Awareness: Social acceptance requires dialogue and sensitization to align judicial rulings with societal understanding.
• Gradual Social Reforms: Courts should encourage phased implementation of rulings to balance rights enforcement with societal adaptation.
  For example: In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the court suggested Parliament enact laws for Muslim women’s rights rather than imposing immediate social change.
• Stronger Executive Role: Governments should proactively enforce verdicts while mitigating public backlash through policy measures and dialogue.

Constitutional morality is the guardian of justice, ensuring a delicate balance between individual rights and social morality. Strengthening judicial clarity, fostering public discourse, and embedding constitutional values in governance will enhance its efficacy. A harmonious democracy thrives when progressive interpretations uphold rights without alienating societal ethos, ensuring justice, liberty, and dignity for all.

DOWNLOAD PDF