In 2026, constitutional morality remains the primary ethical compass for the Indian judiciary, serving as a safeguard for democratic values and a guide for judicial independence. As articulated by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on the 77th Constitution Day (November 26, 2025), this principle ensures that the judiciary acts as a faithful interpreter of the Constitution rather than a "moral arbiter" of societal whims. 

Core Principles and Origins

• Historical Definition: Coined by British historian George Grote, it refers to a "paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution," balancing lawful authority with the freedom to dissent.
• Ambedkar’s Vision: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued that constitutional morality is not a "natural sentiment" but must be cultivated to bridge the gap between administrative structures and democratic spirit in an unequal society.
• Guiding Judicial Independence: It empowers the judiciary to resist arbitrary executive power and majoritarian populism, ensuring that the Rule of Law and institutional propriety are upheld even when they clash with popular morality. 

Key Aspects of Ambedkar's 1948 Perspective

• Necessity of Cultivation: Ambedkar argued that constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment in society; it must be taught and nurtured. He warned that in a society essentially undemocratic, democracy is only a "top-dressing on Indian soil".
• Preventing Misuse of Power: He included detailed administrative provisions to prevent future governments from subverting the Constitution without actually changing its text. He believed it was possible to pervert the spirit of the Constitution by merely altering the form of administration.
• Harmonious Conflict Resolution: For Ambedkar, the concept implied peaceful interaction between the state and citizens, where disputes are resolved through constitutional methods rather than "bloody revolutions" or unconstitutional means like satyagraha.
• Checks on Majority Rule: He emphasized that constitutional morality requires the majority to respect the rights of the minority, ensuring that government remains "free and peaceable" for all.
• Accountability and Responsibility: He favored a Parliamentary system over a Presidential one because it provided for daily assessment and responsibility of the executive to the legislature, which he saw as a manifestation of constitutional morality. 

The Test Of Time: The Emergency Era

The Institutional Breakdown

During the 21-month Emergency, the executive branch systematically dismantled constitutional morality and judicial independence: 

• The ADM Jabalpur Failure (1976): In what is termed the "Habeas Corpus Case," the Supreme Court ruled (4-1) that citizens had no locus standi to challenge illegal detentions when the Right to Life (Article 21) was suspended. This is widely regarded as the judiciary's "darkest hour," where it surrendered its role as the guardian of liberties.
• Executive Overreach: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi bypassed the Cabinet to declare the Emergency under "internal disturbance" (Article 352), a move later labeled by the Shah Commission as a strategic act to protect her own political standing following her disqualification by the Allahabad High Court.
• Subversion of Amendments: The 38th, 39th, and 42nd Amendments were passed to insulate the executive from judicial review, extend the term of Parliament, and prioritize Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. 

Judicial Application and Landmark Rulings

The judiciary has used this doctrine to transform the Constitution into a "living document" through several key judgments: 

• Fundamental Rights: In the Puttaswamy Case (2017/2018), the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy as an essential component of constitutional morality, protecting individual dignity from state infringement.
• Social Equality: The Sabarimala Case (2018) saw the court strike down gender-based entry bans, ruling that constitutional morality (Justice, Liberty, Equality) outweighs discriminatory religious customs.
• Decriminalization: Landmark rulings in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Joseph Shine (2018) used constitutional morality to strike down laws against homosexuality and adultery, emphasizing individual autonomy over societal prejudice.
• Institutional Integrity: In recent 2025-2026 interpretations, the doctrine has been invoked to define the roles of constitutional heads, such as limiting a Governor's discretion to withhold assent to bills. 

Evolution of Constitutional Morality

1. The Dormant Phase: Post-Emergency Correction (1976–2000s)

• The Seeds of Restoration: Following the suspension of rights during the Emergency, the 44th Amendment (1978) and the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973/1976) laid the groundwork by establishing that the "spirit" of the Constitution—its Basic Structure—is inviolable.
• Institutional Propriety: In the S.P. Gupta case (1982), the Supreme Court used "constitutional morality" to define ethical conduct for the executive, labeling procedural breaches as a "serious violation of constitutional morality". 

2. The Era of Transformative Constitutionalism (2009–2018)
The judiciary began explicitly using constitutional morality to prioritize individual rights over "popular" or "social" morality. 

• Decriminalization of Identity: The Naz Foundation (2009) and later Navtej Singh Johar (2018) rulings argued that the Constitution's moral core (liberty, equality, dignity) must protect marginalized groups even if the majority finds their behavior "immoral".
• Gender Justice: In the Sabarimala (2018) and Joseph Shine (2018) cases, the court struck down discriminatory religious customs and laws against adultery, ruling that gender equality is an essential facet of constitutional morality.
• Privacy as a Moral Pillar: The Puttaswamy (2017) judgment established the Right to Privacy as an inherent moral mandate of the Constitution, protecting citizens from state intrusion. 

3. Modern Maturity: Institutional Balance (2019–2026)
In the current decade, the doctrine has moved beyond individual rights to address the Rule of Law and institutional ethics. 

• Second Basic Structure: Justice Dipak Misra and subsequent benches have equated constitutional morality to a "second basic structure," requiring public officials to "bow down to the norms of the Constitution" and act without arbitrariness.
• Balancing Federalism: In rulings such as the NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018/2023), the court used the principle to define the collaborative relationship between elected governments and appointed administrators.
• 2026 Perspective: Today, as highlighted by CJI Surya Kant, constitutional morality is the "heart of jurisprudential evolution," ensuring that judicial independence is exercised not as a personal whim, but as a commitment to the Constitution's founding philosophy. 

Challenges to the Doctrine

• Subjectivity & Varity: Critics argue the concept lacks a strict definition, potentially leading to judicial overreach where unelected judges impose personal interpretations of "the spirit" of the law over the written text.
• Separation of Powers: There is ongoing debate about whether constitutional morality should be an independent ground for striking down laws if no explicit violation of the written Constitution (e.g., Article 14) is present.
• Societal Resistance: Tensions often arise when judicial applications of constitutional morality conflict with deep-rooted religious or cultural traditions, occasionally leading to civil unrest. 

Constitutional Morality as Shield, Not Sword

Protecting Against Abuse

Constitutional morality serves as a protective barrier in several key dimensions:

• Countering Majoritarianism: It acts as a shield for marginalized groups, ensuring that fundamental rights (like those recognized in the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar case) are not suppressed by prevailing social or popular morality.
• Limiting Government Overreach: It checks the arbitrary exercise of power. Recent 2025–2026 interpretations have used it to prevent Governors from indefinitely sitting on state bills, emphasizing institutional accountability over political discretion.
• Preserving the Rule of Law: It mandates that all state actions adhere to the "spirit" of the Constitution—fairness, equality, and justice—even beyond mere literal legal compliance. 

Not a Sword: The Peril of Judicial Overreach
Critics and some jurists warn that if not restrained, the doctrine can be weaponized to undermine democratic processes:

• Judicial Overreach: Without strict definitions, the concept is criticized as a "dangerous tool" that allows unelected judges to bypass the legislature and make policy based on subjective interpretations of "morality".
• Subjectivity & Inconsistency: Because the term is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, different judges may interpret it differently (e.g., the contrasting views in the 2018 Sabarimala case), leading to a lack of legal predictability.
• Erosion of Separation of Powers: Former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal famously described it as a threat that could lead to "judicial supremacy" over parliamentary supremacy, potentially stifling the organic development of social liberalism. 

Conclusion
Constitutional morality has been firmly established as the "ethical spine" of the Indian Republic, guiding the judiciary through an era of complex technological and institutional challenges.

Download Pdf