Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court to hear petitions against remission of 11 convicts on August 7

 

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. 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.

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 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.

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.