A modest plea for constitutional morality

Source: The post “A modest plea for constitutional morality” has been created, based on “A modest plea for constitutional morality” published in “Indian Express” on 11th April 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-2- Governance

Context: Constitutional morality refers to the ethical foundations that sustain constitutional governance through values such as liberty, equality, institutional restraint, pluralism, and procedural respect. The concept has recently become central to debates regarding judicial reasoning in India, especially in cases like the Sabarimala dispute before the Supreme Court of India. Although constitutional morality is sometimes criticised for being vague, it continues to provide an important framework for evaluating the legitimacy of institutional practices and judicial conduct.

Meaning and Nature of Constitutional Morality

• Constitutional morality should be understood not as a strict judicial rule of decision but as a constitutional sensibility guiding interpretation and institutional behaviour.
• It includes values such as judicial self-restraint, respect for pluralism, deference to constitutional procedures, scepticism toward unchecked popular sovereignty, and commitment to open criticism.
• These values strengthen constitutional governance by ensuring that institutions function within the spirit of the Constitution and not merely within its text.

Role of Constitutional Morality in the Sabarimala Case

1. Constitutional morality helps courts frame the correct constitutional questions in disputes involving competing rights and institutional autonomy.
2. In the Sabarimala case, it encourages examination of how liberty and equality can be balanced with the autonomy of religious institutions.
3. It also raises the question of whether exclusionary practices undermine the civic equality and dignity of certain groups.
4. Even when constitutional morality does not provide a definitive answer, it ensures that judicial reasoning remains anchored in constitutional values rather than social prejudices.

Constitutional Morality versus Societal Morality

1. Critics argue that constitutional morality is vague and imposed by courts from above, but societal morality is often even more indeterminate and resistant to rational scrutiny.
2. The invocation of societal morality in constitutional disputes can sometimes function as a device to protect entrenched social practices from constitutional examination.
3. Constitutional morality, by contrast, encourages courts to evaluate practices in light of constitutional commitments to freedom and equality.
4. This approach was evident in cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, where constitutional values were used to test discriminatory social norms.

Constitutional Morality as a Standard to Evaluate the Judiciary

1. Constitutional morality also serves as a diagnostic framework for assessing the conduct and consistency of the judiciary itself.
2. It helps identify instances where arbitrariness in judicial processes weakens procedural discipline and predictability in constitutional interpretation.
3. It highlights situations where constitutional protections such as voting rights and freedom of expression appear to receive inconsistent judicial attention.
4. In this way, constitutional morality strengthens accountability within constitutional institutions rather than weakening them.

Concerns Regarding Reactionary Criticism of Constitutional Morality

1. Reactionary criticism of constitutional morality risks weakening constitutional reasoning by dismissing an important normative framework guiding adjudication.
2. Such criticism may create space for insulating social practices from constitutional scrutiny in the name of tradition or majoritarian preference.
3. It may also contribute to uncertainty in constitutional interpretation and undermine the protection of civic equality.
4. Therefore, questioning constitutional morality is legitimate, but rejecting it entirely reflects a misunderstanding of its role in constitutional governance.

Way Forward

1. The judiciary should clarify the scope and limits of constitutional morality so that it is used as a guiding interpretive principle rather than as an undefined substitute for legal reasoning.
2. Courts should ensure that constitutional morality is applied consistently to strengthen predictability and legitimacy in constitutional adjudication.
3. Parliament and constitutional institutions should work to restore a balanced relationship between judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty within the constitutional framework.
4. Legal discourse should focus on strengthening constitutional values such as liberty, equality, and institutional accountability instead of framing constitutional morality as opposed to societal traditions.
5. A principled use of constitutional morality should continue to serve as a safeguard against arbitrariness and as a framework for protecting civic equality in complex constitutional disputes.

Conclusion: Constitutional morality may not always provide direct solutions to constitutional conflicts, but it remains essential as a normative guide for evaluating institutional power and protecting constitutional values. Strengthening its careful and disciplined use can help ensure that constitutional governance remains anchored in liberty, equality, and reason rather than arbitrariness or social prejudice.

Question: Constitutional morality does not always provide direct judicial answers, but it offers a framework to evaluate institutional power and protect civic equality.” Discuss with reference to debates around the Sabarimala case.

Source: Indian Express