ABSTRACT
As India’s democracy has grown, the rights of marginalised and minority groups have started to be given the same weight as those of the majority. Despite being frequently treated as separate concepts, moral and legal standards have historically overlapped in intricate and occasionally contradictory ways. While morality, particularly public or popular morality, is frequently influenced by cultural, religious, and majoritarian beliefs, law aims for uniformity and objectivity. Particularly when it comes to defending individual rights in opposition to social norms, this junction of morality and the law has created special difficulties. The Indian judiciary has continuously distinguished between popular morality and constitutional morality through its progressive interpretation of the Constitution.
In the historic case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalised adult consensual same-sex relationships by invalidating portions of Section 377 of the IPC. The ruling represented a major step forward in acknowledging and defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community by restricting the application of Section 377 to non-consensual acts or those involving animals. By choosing to defend constitutional morality, which is based on equality, liberty, and dignity, over dominant social prejudices and majoritarian moral standards, this ruling emphasised the Court’s role as the guardian of constitutional values. In addition to restoring personal dignity, the ruling set the stage for upcoming legal changes that will promote justice and inclusivity.
By examining judicial interpretations, with Navtej Singh Johar as the main focus, this article aims to investigate the fundamental distinction between popular morality and constitutional morality. It also traces the development of this doctrinal divide through other significant cases.
Keywords : Constitutional Morality , Popular Morality , Fundamental Rights , Judicial Interpretation , Section 377 IPC , Social Justice
INTRODUCTION
In its most basic definition, morality refers to the fundamental behavioural standards that establish what is right and wrong in a given social setting. It influences how people are viewed and assessed by their communities and frequently dictates behaviour in society at large. John Dewey, a philosopher, argues that social morality is an adaptive reaction to specific circumstances that is primarily influenced by societal norms, traditions, and habits that change over time. However, the idea of constitutional morality is unique and based on democratic and legal principles. In the 19th century, British historian George Grote coined the phrase and defined it as a “paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution “highlighting self-control, reverence for the legal system, and upholding the law despite popular resistance. The commitment to preserve the principles outlined in the Constitution—justice, liberty, equality, and dignity—regardless of prevailing opinions or customs is known as constitutional morality in the Indian context. Popular (or public) morality and constitutional morality differ primarily in their origins and goals. While popular morality reflects societal attitudes, customs, and traditions—often influenced by religion, culture, or local norms—constitutional morality is grounded in legal principles and defends individual rights, even in the face of majoritarian viewpoints.
For example, society has traditionally opposed intercaste marriages, but in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to marry whoever one chooses under Article 21, reaffirming that individual freedom triumphs over social discrimination. Indian courts have recognised that justice must be determined by constitutional values rather than popular opinion, and they have rendered a number of historic rulings over the years where constitutional morality has prevailed over social morality. The judiciary continues to be crucial in resolving the conflict between constitutional rights and societal norms because of India’s adaptable and living Constitution, which permits amendments and changing interpretations. It consistently favours preserving individual rights and dignity over adhering to antiquated customs.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In order to investigate the essential distinctions between popular morality and constitutional morality within the Indian legal system, this research paper takes a qualitative approach. With a primary focus on constitutional provisions, court rulings, and statutory interpretations, the analysis is grounded in doctrinal legal research. In order to comprehend how the judiciary has interpreted and upheld the idea of constitutional morality while separating itself from majoritarian sentiments or popular morality, the study explores a number of significant rulings rendered by the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
This paper’s hypothesis is that the Indian judiciary consistently puts constitutional morality ahead of dominant social or cultural norms, guided by the values of liberty, equality, justice, and equity. When public opinions conflict with its decisions, it does not base its decisions on that opinion. As a result, when it comes to constitutional interpretation, the values embodied in the document are always given precedence over popular morality.
The study examines reliable sources like government reports, scholarly articles, and legal commentaries in order to bolster this theory. It also assesses pertinent statutory provisions, especially Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights. Additionally, to access real case law and follow the development of legal reasoning around morality, judicial databases and legal research platforms such as SCC Online, Manupatra, and Indian Kanoon have been used.This approach enables a thorough comprehension of the philosophical, legal, and social foundations that support the current controversy between popular and constitutional morality as well as what it means for Indian constitutionalism’s future.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
RELEVANT CASE LAWS:
1.Sabarimala Temple Case (State of Kerala v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, 2018)
In this historic ruling, the Supreme Court broke a long-standing religious custom by permitting women between the ages of 10 and 50 to enter the Sabarimala temple. The Court ruled that this kind of exclusion was discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 25, even though it was supported by common morality and custom. It underlined that public morality based on customs cannot be permitted to violate fundamental rights, and that religious freedom cannot supersede gender equality. The ruling demonstrated a definite preference for constitutional morality and reaffirmed that, despite widespread acceptance, practices that stem from inequality cannot be maintained in a contemporary constitutional democracy.
2.Section 377 IPC decriminalisation (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018)
In Navtej Singh Johar, the Supreme Court invalidated portions of Section 377 IPC, which made adult consensual same-sex relationships illegal. The Court underlined that popular morality, which frequently condemns homosexuality as abnormal or immoral, must yield to constitutional morality. The ruling acknowledged identity, privacy, and dignity as fundamental elements of personal freedom under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It was a pivotal point in Indian jurisprudence when the constitutional guarantee of equality was overruled by social disapproval. The decision emphasised the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold minorities’ rights regardless of popular opinion.
3.Union of India v. Shakti Vahini (2018)
The Supreme Court addressed the growing issue of honour killings in this case, especially when it comes to marriages between different castes and religions. In order to stop these murders and safeguard couples who decide to marry outside of social norms, the Court released extensive guidelines. Such unions are still frowned upon by popular morality in many areas, which frequently leads to violence from family members or community organisations like khap panchayats. The Court unequivocally declared that no custom or collective social belief can supersede the right to choose a partner, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It underlined that the State must take proactive measures to safeguard these couples and that constitutional morality must take precedence over social morality .The ruling reaffirms that the judiciary cannot permit regressive social practices to jeopardise the constitutionally protected individual liberties.
4. Union of India v. NALSA (2014)
Transgender people were granted legal recognition and several constitutional protections as a result of this historic case, which acknowledged them as the “third gender.” The Court ruled that transgender people are equally covered by Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The ruling questioned long-held beliefs and the social stigma associated with gender nonconformity, which are ingrained in mainstream morality. The Court underlined that even in cases where public opinion lags behind, constitutional morality requires equality, inclusion, and respect for human dignity. The ruling demolished widely held notions that marginalised the transgender community by formally acknowledging their rights.It instructed the government to use affirmative action to guarantee the community’s access to jobs, healthcare, and education. In the face of pervasive social prejudice, this case became a seminal illustration of the Court’s progressive, inclusive approach while defending constitutional values.
5. Asokan K.M. v. Hadiya (2018)
In this instance, an adult woman named Hadiya married a Muslim man after converting to Islam. She was the victim of “love jihad,” according to her father, who also accused her of coercion. The Supreme Court reversed the Kerala High Court’s decision to declare the marriage null and void, concluding that Article 21 grants every adult the freedom to select their spouse and religion. According to the Court, a person’s autonomy, privacy, and liberty cannot be restricted just because their decision is unpopular or deviates from social or familial norms.This case is a prime illustration of how constitutional rights were prioritised over family honour and popular morality. According to the Court, personal choices about one’s religion and marital status are entirely within one’s power. This ruling upheld the importance of constitutional morality, particularly when it comes to private issues that attract social disapproval.
INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE ON MORALITY AND CONSTITUTIONALISM:
1.The Indian Constitution’s architect, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s View:
By highlighting that a constitutional democracy’s success depends not only on the Constitution but also on its citizens’ and leaders’ adherence to its tenets, he popularised the idea of constitutional morality in India.
Quotation:
“Constitutional morality is not an instinctive feeling. It must be nurtured. We have to acknowledge that our people still lack this knowledge. He cautioned about the perils of morality in society and religion colliding with the principles of the constitution.
2.The term was first used by English historian George Grote in the 19th century.
View:
Described as a “paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution,” constitutional morality entails self-control in public behaviour, institutional respect, and adherence to the law.
3.Supreme Court of India Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s View:
He stressed in Navtej Singh Johar that judicial interpretation must be guided by constitutional morality and that popular morality cannot serve as justification for limiting fundamental rights.
Quotation:
“A plural society is governed by our Constitution. Its interpretation and implementation can only be guided by constitutional morality.
4.The Sabarimala ruling by Justice Indu Malhotra’s (2018) View:
Although she acknowledged that constitutional morality and societal beliefs can frequently clash, particularly when it comes to issues involving religious faith, she dissented in Sabarimala.
5. Prominent legal scholar Prof. Upendra Baxi’s View:
Agrees that it is vital to protect rights in a diverse society like India, but cautions that constitutional morality could be exploited to excuse judicial overreach. Justice A.P. Shah, the Delhi High Court’s former chief justice View: ardent supporter of constitutional morality, particularly when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights and privacy. feels that in order to defend individual liberties, courts must function as counter-majoritarian institutions.
Analysis Using Developing Jurisprudence Regarding the administration of justice, there has been a steady change in Indian jurisprudence, with the judiciary deliberately separating itself from popular opinion. Whether in Sabarimala, Navtej Singh Johar, or other seminal decisions, courts have argued that their role is to defend the Constitution and individual rights, not to appease society. The Court only recognises social morality when it does not conflict with fundamental rights or constitutional principles, even though it may represent societal views.
These rulings consistently convey the idea that constitutional provisions always supersede social norms or traditional beliefs. This illustrates how Indian democracy is changing and how the fundamental principles of equality, liberty, and dignity—rather than the most vocal members of society—define justice. Therefore, even when it goes against long-standing social norms, constitutional morality serves as a compass that directs the judiciary towards justice and inclusivity.
METHOD
Popular morality and constitutional morality differ primarily in how they define right and wrong. Popular morality is influenced by social norms, cultural traditions, and dominant community beliefs, whereas constitutional morality is based on legal provisions, fundamental rights, and justice principles. These two frequently clash, especially when it comes to cases involving the rights of under-represented groups, where the courts must put constitutional protections ahead of popular opinion.
Following the Constitution’s statutory framework, which preserves justice, liberty, equality, and dignity, is how constitutional morality is put into practice. By defending individual liberties like the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equality, and the right to live in dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21, it serves as a symbol of fundamental rights. A person has the right to petition the court when they believe their constitutional rights have been infringed. The court will then consider the matter from the perspective of constitutional provisions, applying principles such as equity, justice, and good conscience.
Conversely, cultural inertia, social conditioning, and familial pressure are the main forces behind popular morality. It represents conventional and frequently inflexible social norms, which are particularly common in underdeveloped or rural regions where values are passed down through the generations. It is impacted by caste relations, religion, patriarchy, and social norms that usually oppose progressive change. Freedom of thought and expression may be compromised when people who initially oppose such standards give in to majoritarian pressure, either willingly or under duress. Furthermore, popular morality lacks the organised, rights-based approach that constitutional morality guarantees, even though it changes over time in response to shifting social values. As a result, the judiciary still plays a crucial role in upholding constitutional morality, especially in situations where popular morality jeopardises individual liberties or infringes upon fundamental rights.
SUGGESTIONS
In the Indian legal system, the ideal notion of constitutional morality must remain a normative compass. It guarantees that justice is carried out in accordance with the Constitution’s tenets—such as equality, liberty, dignity, and the rule of law—rather than popular opinion or conventional values. The judiciary must fulfil its obligation to defend the rights of all citizens, especially those from under-represented groups, in doing so. Together with the Bombay and Madras High Courts, the Calcutta High Court was established in 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act of 1861, marking the beginning of India’s modern judiciary.
The system has changed dramatically over the past 160+ years to accommodate new social, political, and technological realities. The judiciary has frequently attempted to administer justice in the best interests of society, even if that meant challenging popular morality, through a number of constitutional amendments and progressive rulings. Some rulings, like the Sabarimala, Navtej Singh Johar, Joseph Shine, and Shayara Bano cases, have been criticised by the public, but others have distinguished themselves as shining examples of constitutional principles. These illustrate how the judiciary protects individual rights from prejudiced social norms or discriminatory practices.
Courts must aim for consistency in legal reasoning in order to maintain public trust in the legal system. Since disparities have caused misunderstandings and criticism, one of the main recommendations is to preserve consistency in rulings involving comparable facts and legal issues. Judicial accountability and public trust will be improved by the transparent, thoughtful, and consistent application of constitutional principles. Furthermore, the Indian jury system was rightfully abolished after the Nanavati case, which reduced the impact of public opinion, political pressure, and the media on court rulings. This idea needs to be upheld. In conclusion, the rule of law must continue to be based on facts, evidence, and constitutional justice rather than on cultural values or customs. The judiciary must continue to uphold constitutional morality, making sure that justice is both impartial and inclusive.
CONCLUSION
The changing idea of constitutional morality shows how closely and dynamically the Indian judiciary and democracy are related. The Indian judiciary, which is acknowledged as the protector of fundamental rights, is essential to maintaining individual liberties despite social pressure. As previously mentioned, the judiciary is steadfast in its adherence to facts, evidence, and the rule of law and does not base its rulings on popular opinion, media narratives, or religious beliefs. Every case is assessed according to its merits, demonstrating a transformative methodology that continuously prioritises constitutional principles over sentimental or popular influence.
The subjectivity of judicial interpretation is still a major worry, though. The choice between the death penalty and life in prison has generated a lot of discussion, especially when it comes to cases involving horrible crimes. Although it governs capital punishment, the “rarest of rare” doctrine frequently leaves space for interpretation. Concerns regarding sentencing uniformity are raised by the fact that courts do not always apply this threshold consistently, even in cases where crimes appear to meet it. This problem emphasises how constitutional morality in criminal justice needs to be applied more consistently and clearly.
In spite of these obstacles, the judiciary has repeatedly stood up to protect the Constitution from discriminatory customs and regressive social norms. Its steadfast dedication to justice, equality, and dignity is reaffirmed by landmark cases like Navtej Singh Johar, Sabarimala, Shayara Bano, and Joseph Shine. In the end, constitutional morality’s true essence is found in its ability to oppose injustice, even when doing so means defying popular opinion. As India’s social and political landscape develops, the judiciary must continue to be fearless, unbiased, and committed to preserving the principles outlined in the Constitution—ensuring justice for all, despite social pressures.
Submitted by :
Utsab Sengupta
3rd Year BBA.LLB (H)Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan National Institute of Law, Bhubaneswar