The dimensions of judicial justice and constitutional morality are the same. Without judicial justice, constitutional morality is insufficient for the advancement of Indian society; both indirectly contribute to the expansion of social fairness

1. Constitutional Morality And Judicial
Justice
The dimensions of judicial justice and constitutional morality are the same. Without judicial
justice, constitutional morality is insufficient for the advancement of Indian society; both
indirectly contribute to the expansion of social fairness. Constitutional morality gives the
judge the authority to consider and apply moral principles to constitutional provisions. The
constitutional morality serves as a motivator for the court to change the law to satisfy social
needs.
The judiciary and constitutional morality in India both exist to eliminate injustices and
unconstitutional aspects from society because the Indian constitution incorporates moral and
legal principles.
Also Read: Purpose and Powers of the Court to Issue Commissions
A number of legislation recently passed by the judiciary contradict the idea of constitutional
morality, including:
In the Shreya Singhal Case, 2015, the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code (1860) nullified the provisions of Section 66 of the Information Technology Act (2000).
Opening of the Sabarimala shrine to women of all ages in the case of the Indian Young
Lawyers Association under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 2006
In the 2017 Shayara Bano case, the Triple Talaq law should be outlawed and made illegal.
This article focuses on the overall idea of constitutional morality in the context of judicial
justice, including how they are related, the significance of constitutional morality in the
judiciary, recent judgments passed by the judiciary in support of constitutional morality, as
well as recommendations for constitutional morality that the judiciary should follow.
Introduction
As we can see, the Indian court is using the idea of constitutional morality as a basis for
judicial interpretation to deal with issues in contemporary society. As evidenced by previous
judgments, it serves as a transformational tool for the judiciary to protect individual interests.
The Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their "menstruating years" from
entering was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Young Lawyers
Association & Ors. V. Kerala & Ors., allowing all women to enter regardless of age. In this
case, Lord Ayyappa devotees adhered to their religious conviction that menstruating ladies
should not visit the temple.
The judiciary, on the other hand, viewed this matter through the prism of constitutional
morality and decided in favour of individual rights. The Triple Talaq (Talaq ul Biddat) was
ruled to be invalid and void by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shayara Bano v.

2. Union of India after it examined the case in the context of constitutional morality. As a result,
the Supreme Court has made sure that the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional
morality always prevails above private laws and traditions in its capacity as a custodian and
interpreter of the constitution.
Constitutional Morality Has Evolved
Grote introduced the constitutional morality theory. In order to establish free and peaceful
administration, he described constitutional morality as a mindset that must be shared by a
variety of stakeholders, including individuals, public servants, political parties, the opposition,
and political institutions.
Later, on November 4, 1948, during a discussion in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar,
the chairman of the drafting committee, shared his opinions on constitutional morality. He
argued that only in communities where individuals are deeply ingrained with constitutional
morality, like the one Grote described, should administrative details be included in the
constitution. You could take the chance of leaving the legislature in charge of establishing
administrative concerns by eliminating them from the constitution.
He quoted Grote as saying that Indians "have yet to grasp constitutional morality" and that it
is not a "natural attitude." "Democracy in India" is merely a top-dressing on an inherently
undemocratic Indian soil. Therefore, in their respective opinions, constitutional morality is not
being upheld in India.
How Judicial Decisions Are Transforming the Idea of
Constitutional Morality
Naz Foundation v. Delhi's NCT government (2009)
This was one of the first instances where Section 377 of the IPC—which made "canal
intercourse against the order of nature" a crime—was determined to be unconstitutional. It
violated the privacy of the nation's LGBTQ people and subjected them to discrimination. In
this case, it was determined that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that
"popular morality or public disapproval of certain act is not a valid justification for restriction
of the fundamental rights under Article 21," is clearly in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of
the Indian Constitution.
The idea of constitutional and social morality was examined in this instance, and it was held
that constitutional morality would take precedence over social morality. The court was also
instructed to consider "constitutional morality" and not societal or popular morality when
deciding whether a law could be justified or not.

3. Navtej Singh Johar versus the Indian Union
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 377 of the IPC is unconstitutional because it
discriminates against the LGQBT community and views sexual orientation as an integral part
of their identity, dignity, and autonomy. In this case, Section 377 of the IPC was challenged
because it criminalises "canal intercourse," sexual intercourse against the order of nature.
The Supreme Court issued this ruling in accordance with constitutional morality, declaring
that the court must be "directed by the theory of constitutional morality and not by the
conception of society morality" and not be "remotely driven by majoritarian opinion or
popular perception."
"Public morality" and "constitutional morality" are distinct, according to Justice Chandrachud.
As opposed to the latter, which "requires that an individual's rights ought not to be affected
by popular concepts of society," the former states that "the behaviour of society is controlled
by popular views extant in society."
Kerala State v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
Due to the fact that it concerns the admission of women to the Sabarimala shrine, this
litigation is sometimes referred to as the Sabarimala temple case. According to their religious
principles, Lord Ayappa's followers restrict menstruation women from entering the temple.
The court decided in favour of women, holding that the Sabarimala Temple's practise of
barring entry to women in their "menstruating years" violated Articles 15, 17, 25, and 26 of
the Indian Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional.
By ensuring that constitutional morality always takes precedence over traditions and
religious views, the court safeguarded the range of individual rights while considering this
matter from the perspective of constitutional morality.
Constitutional morality's importance in the judiciary
The Supreme Court repeatedly invoked the Doctrine of Constitutional Morality in earlier
rulings by rendering a landmark decision. It is a relatively new idea. The concept of
constitutional morality and judicial principles assumes many forms and has numerous
ramifications for the freedom and dignity of the individual in a democratic society. In recent
years, the Indian judiciary has increasingly used this word in a variety of judgements.
Since the term "constitutional morality" isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, it too is a
matter of judicial interpretation. Constitutional morality can be broken down into two
subcategories in the modern era: as the spirit or power of the Constitution and as the
opposite of popular morality. This progressive and revolutionary concept, as it has come to
be known, has been used by the Supreme Court in a number of instances, some of which
may rank among its most notable and significant rulings. Its goal was to ensure that the

4. constitution's principles prevailed over the populace's malleable morality. The Delhi High
Court's judgement in Navtej Singh Johar's case was later confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Criticisms
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly is a premise that is explained by the
doctrine of colorable legislation.
The Judiciary is an autonomous branch of government that is charged by the Constitution
with resolving conflicts in a fair and just manner. It is dedicated to upholding law and order as
well as the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and state laws. The primary argument
against the Doctrine of Constitutional Morality as a judicial principle is that it is unmistakably
in violation of a fundamental democratic principle, namely, the separation of powers between
the three branches of the State's government: the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
Another argument made by those who disagree with the idea of constitutional morality is that
it has been left up to individual judges to decide what it means and how to apply it.
Furthermore, by giving the courts the authority to use a "top-down approach" in the name of
the morality front concept, it obstructs the organic and natural evolution of liberalism or the
correction of societal wrongs or ethical problems. A judiciary that fairly restricts its power and
sparingly withdraws its jurisdiction when necessary escapes public scrutiny and lacks
accountability.
Conclusion
All responsible people ought to be indoctrinated with a sense of constitutional morality. It
may be argued that rather than being a means of thwarting or resolving government action,
Ambedkar and Grote both considered constitutional morality as a self-imposed restriction by
the people to uphold the constitutional ideals. But more than 70 years after Dr. Ambedkar
delivered his presentation to the Constituent Assembly in 1948, numerous academics and
courts have given the idea a number of different interpretations.
Constitutional morality must be upheld by individuals as well as the judiciary and the
government. The preamble of the constitution explicitly mentions the kind of society we hope
to create; it can only be realised through constitutional morality.
In the past few years, the judiciary has set forward-thinking and historic precedents where
this theory has been used specifically in situations involving gender-justice, institutional
propriety, social uplift, reducing majoritarianism, and other such problems. Achieving justice,
social, economic, and political equality—a triune phenomenon enshrined as a pledge in the
Preambular Glory of our Constitution—requires adherence to constitutional morality and
judicial values, which are inalienable. The Constitution, which represents the people's desire
to be governed, is not an end in and of itself. Rather, it is a means to that end.

5. The two-pronged definition of constitutional morality for the time being entails: first, a legal
mechanism for countering popular morality; and second, a reminder that courts should keep
themselves free of, sometimes rigid, societal beliefs and opinions that need to be
modernised for the benefit and overall advancement of the country. By enabling the courts to
look into the spirit and intent of the Indian Constitution, it also helps keep the government
accountable.
It is appropriately categorised as a second basic structural doctrine as a result. As with most
other constitutional principles, which are largely dependent on the interpretation of judges
while rendering judgements in various scenarios, it is appropriately vague and confusing in
its definition. However, it is necessary due to the country's judicial system and the
requirement that judges fill the "empty vessels of these theories" with words derived from
their years of practise and legal expertise.