Archives: News

Mentor’s Comment

Constitutional morality lies at the heart of India’s democratic ethos, acting as the invisible moral compass that guides law, governance, and justice. The article, written by Justice K. Anand Venkatesh, explores how morality is embedded within constitutional functioning. It is not embedded as a sentimental ideal, but as a living principle that upholds the dignity of institutions and individuals alike. In a time when popular morality often clashes with constitutional values, this debate assumes renewed urgency.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly reaffirmed the link between law and morality, from P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) to the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018). The concept of constitutional morality, originally discussed by Greek historian George Grote in 1846, has resurfaced as a vital restraint against arbitrary governance and populist impulses. It demands adherence to constitutional values, equality, liberty, justice, and fraternity, by all organs of the State and its citizens.

Why in the News

Recent judicial pronouncements have revived debates around constitutional morality as a guiding force for both lawmakers and administrators. Justice Venkatesh’s commentary highlights that democracy without moral discipline risks degenerating into majoritarian rule, where transient popular sentiments override fundamental rights. The renewed emphasis on cultivating constitutional morality reflects India’s struggle to reconcile ethical governance with political pragmatism.

Evolution and Context of Constitutional Morality

1. Historical Roots: Greek historian George Grote coined “constitutional morality” to describe citizens’ disciplined adherence to constitutional norms ensuring liberty and restraint in governance.
2. Indian Adoption: The term entered Indian discourse through Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who viewed it as essential for the successful working of democracy in a diverse society.
3. Judicial Recognition: The Supreme Court acknowledged the interlinkage of law and morality in P. Rathinam (1994). It emphasized the law’s moral purpose , “to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State.”
4. Hart-Devlin Debate: In the 1960s, the famous Hart-Devlin debate discussed whether the law should enforce moral standards. This is an idea that continues to influence Indian jurisprudence.

What Distinguishes Constitutional Morality from Popular Morality

1. Constitutional Morality: Reflects adherence to constitutional principles such as rule of law, equality before law, and institutional propriety.
2. Popular Morality: Represents transient societal opinions or majoritarian values, often inconsistent with constitutional ethics.
3. Judicial Balancing: Courts have often upheld constitutional morality against majoritarian pressures, as seen in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where decriminalization of homosexuality was justified on constitutional grounds rather than social acceptance.
4. Outcome: Promotes stability, fairness, and inclusivity in democratic functioning.

Judicial Approach and Key Judgments

1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Reinforced secularism as a constitutional principle forming part of basic structure.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” embedding constitutional morality as a restraint on legislative excess.
3. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): Stressed that constitutional morality must prevail over religious or social morality, allowing women’s entry into Sabarimala Temple.
4. Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Affirmed that constitutional morality demands protection of individual autonomy and dignity, even if social morality disagrees.
5. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India (2018): Asserted that constitutional functionaries must act within “constitutional morality,” not political expediency.

Challenges in Practising Constitutional Morality

1. Institutional Erosion: Weakening of legislative debate and executive accountability dilutes constitutional culture.
2. Majoritarian Pressures: Electoral populism often overrides institutional restraint and judicial independence.
3. Moral Ambiguity: Absence of a codified moral code makes enforcement of constitutional morality subjective.
4. Public Awareness: Limited civic understanding of constitutional ethics hampers its internalization at citizen level.

Way Forward

1. Cultivation of Ethical Citizenship: Strengthens democratic maturity through civic education and moral training.
2. Institutional Accountability: Ensures public functionaries act within constitutional boundaries through transparent checks.
3. Judicial Vigilance: Maintains the moral compass of the State through continued emphasis on rights-based interpretation.
4. Political Restraint: Encourages lawmakers to prioritize constitutional conscience over populist demand.

Conclusion

Constitutional morality ensures that democracy functions not merely through elections but through adherence to constitutional ethics. It provides a moral foundation for governance, ensuring that justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are lived realities, not abstract ideals. In an era of polarization, it acts as the Republic’s moral compass, binding the State and its citizens to the spirit of the Constitution.