Constitutional Morality as the Anchor of Judicial Independence in India

Context

Modern constitutional democracies rely heavily on constitutional morality to function. It has developed into a normative check on the use of constitutional power in India as well as a guiding interpretive concept. When Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant emphasized that judicial independence and institutional functioning must be guided by constitutional morality on the occasion of the 77th Constitution Day, the concept attracted fresh attention. The vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who frequently cautioned that the constitutional structure, despite its fine craftsmanship, may be subverted in the lack of moral commitment to constitutional norms, is strongly reflected in this articulation. Constitutional morality is an essential defence against institutional arbitrariness in a constitutional system characterized by fierce political competition, increased judicial authority, and rising public expectations.

Conceptual Origins of Constitutional Morality

The Indian Constitution is not the origin of the term “constitutional morality.” The phrase was first used by British historian George Grote in his groundbreaking book A History of Greece, where he defined it as the civic attitude that underpins codified constitutional regulations. According to Grote, constitutional morality is the collective willingness of individuals and organizations to uphold constitutional boundaries, practice self-control, and absorb democratic values beyond simple adherence to the law. He maintained that maintaining democratic governance required this moral culture.

During the deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar embraced and indigenized this concept. He claimed in 1948 that the structure and form of the Constitution itself are inherently moral. But Ambedkar also warned that institutional complacency, abuse of power, and poor management can corrupt constitutional structures. He cautioned that democracy in India would not last just because it was enshrined in a constitution; individuals in positions of authority would need to maintain a moral commitment to the principles of the constitution.

Ambedkar’s Vision: Beyond Legalism

Ambedkar was well aware that liberty, dignity, equality, and fraternity might not be preserved by a strictly legalistic interpretation of the constitution. He acknowledged that, even when operating within the official confines of the law, those in positions of authority in a constitutional democracy frequently had a tendency to become unaccountable. Therefore, according to Ambedkar’s vision, constitutional morality was intended to provide constitutional governance a jurisprudential faith in the Constitution, one that gives its language a democratic purpose and ethical meaning.

According to Ambedkar, this trust would ensure that constitutional institutions serve as defenders of democratic values rather than merely carrying out legislative directives, giving reality to the promises made in the Constitution. Judges in particular were given the duty of providing constitutional guarantees with context and content, particularly at times of institutional crisis or moral ambiguity.

The Emergency and the Crisis of Constitutional Morality

During the Emergency (1975-77), which is considered by many to be one of the darkest periods in India’s constitutional history, Ambedkar’s concerns came to pass. A serious breach of constitutional principles was demonstrated by the suspension of fundamental rights, mass detentions, and repression of dissent. The judiciary also failed to fulfil its constitutional mandate. The Supreme Court notably ruled in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) that even the right to life could be suspended in an emergency.

However, Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent represents a turning point in the application of constitutional morality. According to Justice Khanna, no power could extinguish the fundamental right to life and liberty, and the rule of law existed both before and apart from the Constitution. His dissent highlighted a fundamental principle of constitutional morality: injustice can be justified by legality when it is separated from moral conviction. Thus, the Emergency underscored the need for constitutional morality as a safeguard against authoritarianism and revealed the perils of constitutional administration without moral discipline.

Post-Emergency Jurisprudence and the Rise of Constitutional Morality

Indian constitutional law changed significantly in the decades after the Emergency. Using the concept of constitutional morality both overtly and covertly, the judiciary progressively reaffirmed its role as a guardian of constitutional principles. A stronger dedication to constitutional ethics was demonstrated by significant advancements, including the expansion of Article 21, the doctrine of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati), and the establishment of public interest litigation (PIL).

A move away from formalism and toward value-oriented adjudication was signalled by the Supreme Court’s liberalization of standing standards, use of epistolary jurisdiction, and focus on substantive justice. The philosophical thread that united these advances was constitutional morality, which allowed courts to confront systematic inequalities while being grounded in the text and intent of the Constitution.

Constitutional Morality in Contemporary Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has recently made clear references to constitutional morality in decisions pertaining to equality, individual autonomy, and social rights. The Court held that societal morality cannot supersede constitutional principles in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), decriminalizing consenting same-sex relationships on the basis of constitutional morality. Similar to this, the adultery clause was overturned in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) on the grounds that it violated equality and dignity, with the Court’s rationale based on constitutional morality.

These rulings show how constitutional morality serves as a remedy when fundamental rights are at odds with entrenched societal norms or majoritarian sentiment. Crucially, the Court made it clear that constitutional morality requires judges to respect the Constitution’s principles rather than giving them the authority to impose their own moral beliefs.

Institutional Functioning and Judicial Independence

Institutional functioning is an important and frequently overlooked aspect of constitutional morality. It encompasses how constitutional authorities use their authority as well as constitutional consequences. The Chief Justice of India’s position becomes especially important in this situation. The CJI has significant administrative power in setting up benches and assigning cases because they are the “master of the roster.”In order to maintain institutional integrity and public trust, constitutional morality requires that such powers be used in a transparent, equitable, and non-arbitrary manner.

CJI Surya Kant’s recent focus on justice and restraint in judicial administration demonstrates an understanding that ethical self-governance and constitutional safeguards both support judicial independence. The judiciary is protected from both external pressures and internal factionalism by institutional morality, which is based on constitutional morality.

Limits of Constitutional Morality: A Shield, Not a Sword

Constitutional morality is essential to preserving democracy, but it does not give judges permission to overreach. Not all constitutional or legal problems indicate a moral failure or a betrayal of democratic ideals. Constitutional morality must be applied sparingly, especially where there are clear violations of constitutional rights, abuses of authority, or deterioration of institutional protections.

Constitutional morality serves as a shield against constitutional injustice when applied appropriately. When applied carelessly, it runs the risk of turning into a sword that upholds judicial supremacy at the expense of democratic equilibrium. Maintaining this delicate balance, making sure that courts continue to be constitutional interpreters rather than moral judges, is the difficult part.

Comparative Perspectives: Constitutional Morality Beyond India

Doctrines like “constitutional culture” in Germany and “living constitutionalism” in Canada and South Africa share similarities with the concept of constitutional morality. For example, the South African Constitutional Court has continuously emphasized freedom, equality, and dignity as guiding principles for constitutional interpretation. In a similar vein, European constitutional law emphasizes that institutional self-control and proportionality are crucial to democratic legitimacy.

While staying unique in its historical background and constitutional imagination, India’s engagement with constitutional morality brings it into line with these international traditions. The Indian experience shows how, in highly plural countries, constitutional morality may function as both an institutional ethic and a normative compass.

Conclusion

For Indian democracy to remain strong, constitutional morality is still essential. It has developed into a guiding philosophy that unites law and ethics, text and purpose, power and restraint, from Ambedkar’s prophetic warnings to modern court rulings. Maintaining judicial independence, protecting fundamental rights, and upholding public confidence in constitutional institutions all depend on a court dedicated to constitutional morality.

Constitutional morality must be practised with discipline and humility at the same time. It is a foundation for moral constitutional government rather than a weapon for moral absolutism. When used appropriately, it guarantees that courts uphold democratic bounds and stay true to the spirit of the Constitution. Constitutional morality serves as a reminder of the ethical underpinnings of the Constitution and an obligation to preserve them with integrity in a time of complicated constitutional problems.

Sharing is caring!