Contents
Introduction
Constitutional Morality (CM) is the soul of Indian constitutionalism. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defined it as a commitment to the constitutional method and democratic norms. In 2026, it has evolved into a judicial filter used to resolve the friction between archaic social practices and modern fundamental rights.
Conceptual Framework
The term CM as articulated by scholar Dr. Ambedkar, refers to the supremacy of constitutional values—liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice—over transient societal majoritarianism. Unlike societal morality (sampradaya or sadachar), which is organic, historically evolved, and often exclusionary, constitutional morality demands:
- Self-restraint in the exercise of power.
- Respect for plurality and dissent.
- Deference to constitutional processes.
- Scepticism towards authoritative claims of popular sovereignty.
- Commitment to an open culture of criticism.
Reconciling Individual Liberties with Institutional Autonomy
Constitutional morality provides a principled framework for balancing competing claims:
- Liberty vs. Belief: CM dictates that Societal Morality cannot supersede CM (Article 14 – Equality, Article 21 – Dignity). Example: In Navtej Singh Johar (2018), the Supreme Court invoked it to decriminalise homosexuality, protecting personal liberty against majoritarian morality.
- Institutional Autonomy: While Article 26 grants religious denominations autonomy to manage their affairs, CM suggests this autonomy is not absolute. It is subject to public order, morality, and health. Example: Sabarimala judgment (2018) tested whether exclusionary practices violated women’s equality, illustrating the tension between religious autonomy and gender justice.
- Reconciliation Mechanism: It demands proportionality, asking whether a practice so burdens civic equality that institutional autonomy must yield. This prevents both unchecked individualism and unaccountable institutional power. Example: If an exclusion (like the ban on women of menstruating age) effectively renders them second-class citizens, institutional autonomy must yield to constitutional egalitarianism.
Efficacy in Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability
Balancing Judicial Independence vs. Accountability
In 2026, CM is frequently invoked to manage the internal hygiene of the judiciary:
- Judicial Independence: Independence is not just freedom from the Executive but the ability to decide cases solely on constitutional principles. CM prevents majoritarian impulses from influencing the Bench.
- Judicial Accountability (The Self-Correcting Fulcrum):
- Master of the Roster: As CJI Surya Kant highlighted in late 2025, the power to assign cases must be exercised with Constitutional Sincerity, avoiding arbitrariness to maintain public trust.
- Administrative Transparency: CM demands that the independence of the judiciary does not become a shield for opacity. The 2026 move toward voluntary disclosure of judges assets is a manifestation of CM in practice.
3. The Check on High Functionaries: CM reminds judges that while they are independent, they are accountable to the Constitutional Spirit. It prevents the judiciary from becoming an imperium in imperio (a state within a state).
Critical Evaluation
While CM is a stabilizing force, it faces two major critiques in 2026:
- The Indic Critique: As argued in recent SC hearings, some view CM as a Western import that may not fully capture India’s civilizational heritage, potentially leading to a Judicial Overreach into matters of deep-seated faith.
- Lack of Definition: Critics argue CM is a subjective concept. Without a clear legislative or constitutional definition, it can become a tool for Judicial Subjectivity, where the morality of the judge replaces the morality of the Constitution.
Conclusion
Constitutional Morality is the silent sentinel of the Indian democracy. It ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, capable of reconciling the diverse claims of individual liberty, group autonomy, and institutional integrity.
