Answer:

Introduction:

Constitutional morality is a phrase coined by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, referring to respect and adherence to the Constitution and its principles. It means to follow the Constitution in spirit, not just in words, and to uphold values such as justice, freedom, equality, and brotherhood that the Constitution stands for. This forms a balance between respecting the laws of the land and maintaining individual rights and freedoms.

Body:

In the recent Allahabad High Court judgement on live-in relationships between interfaith couples, constitutional morality was a significant concept for consideration. 

Listed below are the key aspects of this judgement:

• Distinction between Legal and Social Concerns: 
  • The Court differentiated between the legal and social dimensions of live-in relationships, asserting that the court’s intervention can only extend to violations of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and not to address social issues. 
  • This aligns with the principle of limited jurisdiction of the courts.
• Acceptance of Reality: 
  • The court acknowledged that live-in relationships exist and are not illegal. 
  • This is in line with the Supreme Court judgement of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, where it held that a live-in relationship was a facet of the right to life under Article 21.
• Dilemma of Religious Laws: 
  • The Court highlighted the predicament faced by the live-in couple belonging to different religions – Hinduism and Islam – each of which has divergent views on premarital relationships.
• Preserving Institution of Marriage: 
  • The judgement asserted the importance of marriage as an institution, reflecting the societal norm which can be seen as a parallel to the constitutional values of unity and fraternity.
• Lack of Legal Protection: 
  • The judgement pointed out the lack of legal protection for partners in a live-in relationship, especially regarding property rights and maintenance claims. 
  • This indicates the absence of a constitutional safeguard for such individuals.

Alignment with the  Supreme Court principles:

• In terms of alignment with the principles upheld by the Supreme Court of India, the judgement appears to be in consonance with the acknowledgement of live-in relationships as a facet of the right to life.
• However, the legal issues surrounding property rights, maintenance claims, and other protections for live-in partners continue to remain unresolved. 
• The concept of constitutional morality could guide future legal developments in these areas, ensuring that individual liberty is upheld while maintaining the fabric of society.
• The Supreme Court addressed the definition of the phrase “personal liberty” in Kharak Singh v. State of UP and others (1962), which came out as a challenge to have something more than just animal existence.

Conclusion: 

The judgement, while acknowledging the reality of live-in relationships, maintained the sanctity of marriage and institutional norms. The lack of legal protection for partners in live-in relationships highlights the need for laws to evolve along with societal changes. It calls for a balance between individual liberty and societal norms, invoking constitutional morality, where every individual respects the constitutional values, promoting harmony and unity in diversity.