Que. ‘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.

‘संवैधानिक नैतिकता’ की जड़ संविधान में ही निहित है और इसके तात्त्विक फलकों पर आधारित है। ‘संवैधानिक नैतिकता’ के सिद्धांत की प्रासंगिक न्यायिक निर्णयों की सहायता से विवेचना कीजिए।

Structure of the Answer

(i) Introduction: Explain the concept of “Constitutional Morality,” its importance, and its foundational role in Indian democracy and constitutional interpretation.

(ii) Main Body: Discuss the evolution and significance of “Constitutional Morality” with reference to key judicial decisions and their impact on constitutional law.

(iii) Conclusion: Summarize the importance of “Constitutional Morality” in protecting democratic values and ensuring the integrity of the Indian Constitution.

Introduction 

“Constitutional Morality” refers to the adherence to the core principles of the Constitution, such as justice, equality, and democracy, which must guide governance and judicial decisions. It safeguards the foundational values of India’s democratic framework and ensures constitutional integrity.

Defining Constitutional Morality

(i) Core Concept: Constitutional Morality” involves respect for the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution, such as “justice,” “equality,” and “freedom.” It goes beyond mere legalism and reflects the spirit of the Constitution. It ensures that actions by both the government and judiciary are aligned with these principles.

(ii) Origin of Constitutional Morality: The concept has evolved through judicial interpretations, particularly where the Court emphasized that the Constitution is not just a legal document but a “moral contract” with the people, grounded in the “Preamble” and “Fundamental Rights.”

(iii) Not Just Legal Provisions: Constitutional Morality” is not limited to legal provisions but embodies a broader moral commitment to uphold the democratic spirit of the Constitution. It applies to both state actions and individual conduct, ensuring that the law is followed not just in letter but in spirit.

(iv) Role in Judicial Review: It plays a crucial role in judicial review, where the courts interpret laws and amendments, ensuring that they align with constitutional principles, such as “secularism,” “democracy,” and “social justice,” thus protecting the rights of citizens.

(v) Guarding Fundamental Rights: At the core of “Constitutional Morality” is the protection of “fundamental rights.” It is the judiciary’s duty to uphold these rights, even against majoritarian views or political pressures, ensuring that they are not undermined by the state or by changes in public sentiment.

Judicial Evolution of Constitutional Morality

(i) Kesavananda Bharati (1973): In the landmark “Kesavananda Bharati” case, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. This decision asserted that Parliament could not amend the Constitution in ways that violated its “basic structure,” which is rooted in “Constitutional Morality.”

(ii) Minerva Mills (1980): In “Minerva Mills,” the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the “basic structure” and emphasized that the Constitution’s core values, such as “justice,” “equality,” and “democracy,” must guide all amendments, showcasing the primacy of “Constitutional Morality” in constitutional interpretation.

(iii) Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975): The case involved the judgment on the “Emergency” and highlighted the judiciary’s role in checking the excesses of the executive. The Court, through this decision, reinforced “Constitutional Morality” by invalidating provisions that curtailed fundamental rights under political pressures.

(iv) S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This case clarified the limits of executive power in dismissing state governments. The judgment reaffirmed that actions must be consistent with the “secular” and “democratic” nature of the Constitution, emphasizing that constitutional principles must guide governance, hence embodying “Constitutional Morality.”

(v) Navtej Singh Johar (2018): This landmark ruling decriminalized “Section 377” of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations. The judgment emphasized “Constitutional Morality” by stating that the Constitution ensures dignity and equality for all individuals, including the LGBTQ+ community.

Constitutional Morality in Modern Governance

(i) Role in Secularism and Pluralism: “Constitutional Morality” is essential in safeguarding “secularism” and “pluralism,” ensuring that the state remains neutral in religious matters. It prevents the entanglement of religion with politics and ensures equal treatment for all religious communities, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

(ii) Preserving Democratic Values: The doctrine ensures that democratic values, including free and fair elections, the separation of powers, and the rule of law, are respected. “Constitutional Morality” dictates that no government can act in a manner that erodes these values, which are central to India’s governance.

(iii) Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial interpretations of “Constitutional Morality” have led to the strengthening of fundamental rights. The judiciary, through its interpretation of the Constitution, ensures that even in cases of conflict, rights such as “equality,” “freedom of speech,” and “right to life” are upheld.

(iv) Limiting Executive Power: “Constitutional Morality” places checks on the executive to prevent arbitrary decision-making. It mandates that executive actions must adhere to the constitutional principles of “justice” and “accountability,” thus ensuring governance remains within the bounds of the Constitution.

(v) Judicial Independence: The role of an independent judiciary is critical in upholding “Constitutional Morality.” Courts have repeatedly ensured that the independence of the judiciary remains intact, safeguarding democratic values and providing a check on both executive and legislative powers.

Criticism and Challenges of Constitutional Morality

(i) Subjectivity in Interpretation: A significant criticism of “Constitutional Morality” is its subjective nature. Critics argue that the concept can be interpreted differently by various judges, leading to inconsistent judicial decisions. This subjectivity can undermine the certainty required in constitutional law.

(ii) Judicial Overreach: Some argue that “Constitutional Morality” can lead to “judicial overreach,” where the judiciary interferes excessively in matters that should be within the purview of the executive or legislature. This could disturb the balance of power between the branches of government.

(iii) Conflict with Political Morality: “Constitutional Morality” may sometimes clash with prevailing political morality, especially when the courts uphold constitutional principles that are contrary to popular political opinion. This tension can challenge the legitimacy of judicial interventions.

(iv) Lack of Clear Guidelines: Another criticism is the lack of clear guidelines to define “Constitutional Morality.” Without a universally accepted standard, the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying this doctrine can be inconsistent, raising questions about its application.

(v) Impact on Social and Political Change: While “Constitutional Morality” aims to preserve constitutional values, some argue that it can impede social progress if rigid interpretations prevent necessary reforms. Balancing tradition with contemporary needs is a challenge that courts face in this context.

Conclusion 

“Constitutional Morality” ensures that governance in India remains anchored in the values of democracy, justice, and equality. While it strengthens constitutional integrity, the doctrine faces challenges such as judicial overreach and subjective interpretation, which need careful judicial balancing.