Constitutional Morality
Concept and Controversy
"Constitutional morality" as a judicial doctrine refers to the idea that the Constitution embodies certain transformative moral values — such as equality, dignity, and non-discrimination — and that these values should guide the interpretation of rights even when they clash with prevailing social or popular morality. The concept was first articulated in Indian jurisprudence in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (the Sabarimala judgment, 2018).
- The term was borrowed from B.R. Ambedkar's Constituent Assembly speech (November 4, 1948), where he used it to mean adherence to constitutional procedures and norms by holders of public power — not as a substantive test for rights.
- In Navtej Singh Johar (2018), the Supreme Court used constitutional morality to hold that Section 377 IPC (to the extent it criminalised consensual same-sex acts between adults) was unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
- In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the court used the concept to strike down instant triple talaq.
- Critics (including the Centre's current position) argue that "constitutional morality" gives judges unchecked power to substitute their own values for those of elected legislatures, undermining Article 13's text-based approach to fundamental rights review.
● Tracked since February 21, 2026 · last seen April 08, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief