Open Access Research Article
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY AND THE INDIAN JUDICIARY:- EXPLORING THE CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION. BY:- ADV. ANUPRITA KULKARNI
Published Paper
Article Details
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY
AND THE INDIAN JUDICIARY:- EXPLORING THE CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION.
AUTHORED
BY:- ADV. ANUPRITA KULKARNI
I. INTRODUCTION:-
Constitutional
morality stands as a foundational pillar in the edifice of democracy, serving
as both a guiding principle and a moral compass for the governance of a nation.
In the context of India, a country characterized by its rich tapestry of
cultural diversity and historical legacies, constitutional morality assumes
paramount significance. Rooted in the preamble of the Indian Constitution,
which solemnly resolves to secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity
for all citizens, constitutional morality embodies the collective conscience
and values enshrined within the constitutional framework[1].
The Indian
judiciary, vested with the solemn duty to uphold and protect the Constitution,
plays a pivotal role in interpreting and applying constitutional principles,
including constitutional morality. As guardians of the Constitution, judges are
tasked with navigating the intricate web of legal texts, precedents, and
societal norms to ensure that the spirit of constitutional morality permeates
every aspect of governance and public life[2].
At its core,
constitutional morality encompasses adherence to the principles of justice,
fairness, equality, and the rule of law, as enshrined in the Constitution. It
demands that the exercise of governmental power and the formulation of laws be
guided by a commitment to upholding fundamental rights and ensuring the welfare
and dignity of every individual. Moreover, constitutional morality serves as a
bulwark against tyranny and arbitrariness, providing a framework for holding
state actors accountable and safeguarding the rights and liberties of citizens.
In recent
years, the concept of constitutional morality has assumed renewed significance
in India, as the judiciary grapples with complex legal and moral questions in
the face of evolving societal challenges. Landmark judgments on issues ranging
from privacy rights to LGBTQ+ rights have underscored the judiciary's
commitment to upholding constitutional morality as a touchstone for
decision-making[3].
However, the
application of constitutional morality is not without its challenges and
controversies. Debates over judicial activism, judicial restraint, and the
limits of judicial review continue to animate legal discourse, raising
questions about the appropriate role of the judiciary in shaping public policy
and social change.
Against this
backdrop, this research article seeks to delve deeper into the concept of
constitutional morality and its application by the Indian judiciary. By
examining key legal principles, landmark judgments, and contemporary debates,
this study aims to shed light on the evolving role of constitutional morality
in Indian jurisprudence and its implications for democratic governance and the
rule of law.
II.UNDERSTANDING CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY:-
a)
Definition and Evolution of Concept:-
Constitutional
morality can be defined as adherence to the principles and values enshrined
within a constitution, with a focus on justice, equality, liberty, and the rule
of law. It embodies the collective conscience of a society and serves as a
guiding principle for governance, ensuring that governmental actions and laws
are in consonance with constitutional principles.
The concept of
constitutional morality has evolved over time, influenced by historical,
philosophical, and legal developments. In the Indian context, constitutional
morality finds its roots in the preamble of the Constitution, which reflects
the aspirations of the founding fathers to create a just and egalitarian
society[4].
Throughout India's constitutional history, the judiciary has played a crucial
role in interpreting and applying constitutional morality, often through
landmark judgments that have expanded the scope of fundamental rights and
challenged entrenched social norms. Over the years, constitutional morality has
emerged as a dynamic and evolving concept, shaped by changing societal values,
legal interpretations, and judicial pronouncements, reflecting the ongoing
quest for justice, equality, and dignity for all citizens.
b)
Relationship Between Constitutional Morality and the Rule of
law:-
The
relationship between constitutional morality and the rule of law is intricate
and symbiotic, with each concept reinforcing and complementing the other in a
democratic society[5].
At its core,
constitutional morality ensures that the exercise of governmental power and the
formulation of laws are guided by adherence to the principles and values
enshrined within the constitution. This includes upholding fundamental rights,
ensuring equality before the law, and fostering a system of justice that is
fair and impartial. Constitutional morality acts as a check on arbitrary
exercise of power by state actors and serves as a safeguard against
governmental actions that may infringe upon individual liberties or undermine
the rule of law.
Similarly, the
rule of law embodies the principle that all individuals, including government
officials, are bound by and accountable to the law. It ensures that laws are
applied consistently and predictably, without favoritism or discrimination. The
rule of law requires adherence to legal procedures and safeguards, ensuring due
process and protection of rights for all citizens.
Constitutional
morality and the rule of law are mutually reinforcing in several ways:
1. Legitimacy
of Laws:-
Laws enacted
in accordance with constitutional principles and morality are seen as
legitimate and binding. This enhances respect for the legal system and promotes
compliance with laws among citizens[6].
2. Judicial
Review:
Constitutional
morality provides a framework for judicial review, allowing courts to strike
down laws or governmental actions that violate constitutional values[7].
This reinforces the rule of law by ensuring that governmental powers are
exercised within constitutional limits.
3. Protection
of Rights:
Both
constitutional morality and the rule of law prioritize the protection of
individual rights and liberties. They provide mechanisms for individuals to
seek redressal for grievances and challenge governmental actions that infringe
upon their rights.
4.
Accountability:
Constitutional
morality promotes accountability among government officials by holding them
accountable for actions that contravene constitutional principles. This fosters
transparency, integrity, and accountability within the government, reinforcing
the rule of law.
Constitutional
morality and the rule of law are intertwined concepts that underpin the
functioning of a democratic society. Together, they contribute to the
establishment of a legal framework that upholds justice, equality, and the
rights of all individuals, ensuring that governance is conducted in accordance
with constitutional principles and values.
c)
Constitutional Provisions and principles underlying
Constitutional Morality in India:-
Constitutional
morality in India is underpinned by various constitutional provisions and
principles that are fundamental to the functioning of the Indian democratic
system. Here are some key provisions and principles:
1. Preamble of
the Constitution:
The Preamble
serves as the guiding light for the interpretation and application of the
Constitution. It declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, and
democratic republic committed to securing justice, liberty, equality, and
fraternity for all citizens. These values encapsulated in the Preamble lay the
foundation for constitutional morality.
2. Fundamental
Rights (Part III):
Part III of
the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including the
right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to
freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and right to
constitutional remedies. These rights are essential for upholding individual
dignity, liberty, and equality, thus forming the core of constitutional
morality.
3. Directive
Principles of State Policy (Part IV):
Part IV of the
Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) which provide
guidelines for the government to promote the welfare of the people by securing
social, economic, and political justice. While not legally enforceable, these
principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and serve as a
moral compass for legislative and executive actions.
4. Judicial
Review (Article 13):
Article 13
declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights
shall be void. This provision empowers the judiciary to review and strike down
laws that violate constitutional principles, including those related to
constitutional morality.
5. Equality
before Law (Article 14):
Article 14
ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws to all persons
within the territory of India. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, thereby promoting the principle
of equality, a cornerstone of constitutional morality.
6. Rule of
Law:
While not
explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the principle of the rule of law
pervades its fabric. It ensures that the government is subject to the law, no
one is above the law, and laws are applied uniformly to all individuals. The
rule of law is essential for upholding constitutional morality by providing a
framework for governance based on legal principles and accountability.
7. Independence
of Judiciary (Articles 124-147):
The
Constitution provides for an independent judiciary as a guardian of the
Constitution and the protector of fundamental rights. The judiciary's
independence is crucial for upholding constitutional morality by ensuring
impartial adjudication and enforcement of constitutional principles.
These
constitutional provisions and principles collectively form the bedrock of
constitutional morality in India, guiding the interpretation, application, and
enforcement of laws and governance in accordance with constitutional values and
principles.
III.ROLE OF INDIA JUDICIARY:-
a)
Historical Perspective :- Landmark Judgment shaping
constitutional morality:-
Several
landmark judgments in India have played a pivotal role in shaping and defining
the concept of constitutional morality. Here are a few notable examples:
1. Keshavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)[8]:
This case
marked a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history. The Supreme Court,
through its interpretation of the Constitution's basic structure doctrine,
asserted the supremacy of certain fundamental principles and values inherent in
the Constitution. The judgment affirmed that the Parliament's amending power
under Article 368 is not unlimited and cannot alter the basic structure of the
Constitution. By doing so, the Court reinforced the idea that the Constitution
is not merely a legal document but a living instrument embodying core values
such as democracy, rule of law, and judicial independence.
2. Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)[9]:
In this case,
the Supreme Court expanded the scope of personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to life enshrined
in Article 21 is not limited to mere physical existence but encompasses a
broader spectrum of rights, including the right to travel abroad. This judgment
marked a significant departure from earlier interpretations and underscored the
judiciary's role in safeguarding individual freedoms and liberties against
executive actions.
3. Indira
Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)[10]:
In this case,
the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of judicial review and the supremacy
of the Constitution over parliamentary sovereignty. The Court invalidated the
election of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on grounds of electoral
malpractice, thereby upholding the rule of law and constitutional principles
even in the face of political power.
4.Navtej Singh
Johar v. Union of India (2018)[11]:
This landmark
judgment decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, striking
down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court recognized the
right to equality and personal autonomy as essential components of
constitutional morality. The judgment affirmed that discriminatory laws based
on sexual orientation are unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights.
5. Justice
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)[12]:
Commonly known
as the Aadhaar judgment, this case dealt with the constitutionality of the
Aadhaar biometric identification scheme. The Supreme Court held that the right
to privacy is a fundamental right intrinsic to Article 21 and forms an integral
part of constitutional morality. The judgment affirmed the importance of
protecting individual privacy rights against encroachment by the state.
6. S. R. Bommai
v. Union of India (1994)[13]:
This case
addressed the issue of misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows
for the imposition of President's Rule in states. The Supreme Court held that
the power to dissolve state governments should be exercised cautiously and only
in exceptional circumstances, emphasizing the principles of federalism and
democratic governance. The judgment underscored the importance of
constitutional morality in preventing executive overreach and preserving the
integrity of federalism in India.
7. Shah Bano
v. Union of India (1985)[14]:
In this case,
the Supreme Court addressed the issue of Muslim women's rights to maintenance
after divorce under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court
upheld the principle of gender equality enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution, ruling that Muslim women are entitled to maintenance like women
from other communities. The judgment highlighted the judiciary's commitment to
upholding constitutional values of equality and justice, even in matters of
personal laws.
8. M. Nagaraj
v. Union of India (2006)[15]:
This case
dealt with the issue of reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in public employment. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of
reservations in promotions, subject to certain conditions, affirming the
principle of social justice enshrined in Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The
judgment underscored the judiciary's role in promoting affirmative action
policies to address historical injustices and ensure equality of opportunity
for marginalized communities.
9. Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan (1997)[16]:
In this case,
the Supreme Court addressed the issue of sexual harassment of women in the
workplace and laid down guidelines to prevent and redress such harassment. The
Court invoked the principles of equality, dignity, and the right to work with
dignity, enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, to establish
the employer's obligation to provide a safe and harassment-free work
environment for women. The judgment highlighted the judiciary's proactive role
in protecting fundamental rights and promoting gender justice.
10. Sikh
Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Shri Som Nath Dass (2000)[17]:
In this case,
the Supreme Court addressed the issue of autonomy and management of religious
institutions. The Court held that the principle of autonomy of religious
denominations is subject to the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and
public order. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of balancing religious
freedoms with constitutional values such as equality and non-discrimination,
thus upholding constitutional morality in matters of religious governance.
These landmark
judgments illustrate the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying
constitutional morality to uphold core constitutional values such as democracy,
rule of law, fundamental rights, and individual liberties. They have
contributed significantly to the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in
India and have set important precedents for the protection and promotion of
constitutional morality in the country.
b)
Judicial Activism v. Judicial restraint in promoting
constitutional morality:-
The concepts
of judicial activism and judicial restraint represent contrasting approaches
adopted by the judiciary in interpreting and applying constitutional principles
to promote constitutional morality in India. Judicial activism involves an
assertive role by the judiciary in addressing social, political, and economic
issues, often through expansive interpretations of constitutional provisions to
advance progressive goals. In contrast, judicial restraint entails a more
deferential approach, with the judiciary exercising caution and refraining from
excessive interference in matters best left to the legislature or executive.
Judicial
activism, exemplified by landmark judgments such as Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, has been instrumental in
advancing constitutional morality by addressing pressing social injustices and
upholding fundamental rights. Through proactive interventions, the judiciary
has expanded the scope of constitutional rights, protected marginalized
communities, and promoted inclusive development, thus fostering a culture of
rights-based governance and social transformation.
On the other
hand, judicial restraint, as evidenced in cases like S. R. Bommai v. Union of
India and M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, reflects a commitment to preserving
institutional balance and respecting the separation of powers. While upholding
constitutional principles, the judiciary exercises restraint in deferring to
legislative judgment and allowing democratic processes to unfold without undue
interference. By exercising self-restraint, the judiciary ensures the
legitimacy and effectiveness of its interventions, thereby reinforcing the rule
of law and constitutional morality.
In promoting
constitutional morality, both judicial activism and judicial restraint play
complementary roles, each suited to different contexts and circumstances. While
judicial activism responds to pressing societal needs and advances progressive
values, judicial restraint safeguards institutional integrity and democratic
governance. Ultimately, the synergy between judicial activism and judicial
restraint enables the judiciary to navigate complex legal and moral issues,
uphold constitutional values, and promote the enduring principles of justice,
equality, and liberty enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
IV.CHALLENGES AND CONTROVERSIES:-
a)
Conflict between Constitutional Morality and Societal Norms:-
The conflict between
constitutional morality and societal norms represents a fundamental tension in
the Indian legal landscape, reflecting the challenge of reconciling traditional
beliefs and practices with the principles of justice, equality, and individual
rights enshrined in the Constitution. Societal norms, rooted in cultural
traditions, religious beliefs, and customary practices, often diverge from
constitutional values, leading to conflicts between legal mandates and societal
expectations.
In India, this
conflict is evident in various spheres, including gender equality, caste
discrimination, and LGBTQ+ rights[18].
For instance, practices such as child marriage, dowry, and untouchability,
which are deeply ingrained in certain communities, perpetuate systemic
inequalities and violate constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality.
Similarly, societal stigmas surrounding issues such as menstruation, mental
health, and disability hinder the realization of fundamental rights and impede
progress towards a more inclusive and egalitarian society.
The judiciary,
as the guardian of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in addressing this
conflict by interpreting and applying constitutional principles to challenge
regressive societal norms. Through landmark judgments such as Vishaka v. State
of Rajasthan, which addressed sexual harassment in the workplace, and Navtej
Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized consensual homosexual acts,
the judiciary has intervened to protect individual liberties and promote social
justice, even in the face of societal resistance.
However,
navigating the conflict between constitutional morality and societal norms
requires a delicate balance, as excessive judicial activism may provoke
backlash and undermine social cohesion. Moreover, entrenched societal attitudes
and power structures often pose formidable obstacles to legal reform,
necessitating sustained efforts at both the grassroots and institutional levels
to effect meaningful change.
In conclusion,
the conflict between constitutional morality and societal norms reflects the
complex interplay between legal principles and cultural traditions in India.
While the judiciary plays a critical role in upholding constitutional values,
resolving this conflict requires broader societal engagement and transformative
change to ensure that the principles of justice, equality, and dignity are
fully realized for all individuals, regardless of societal norms or cultural
practices.
b)
Criticism and debates surrounding the concept of the
Constitutional Morality:-
The concept of
constitutional morality in India has sparked debates and criticisms, reflecting
diverse perspectives on its interpretation, application, and implications for
democratic governance. One criticism revolves around the perceived ambiguity
and subjectivity of the concept, which lacks a precise definition and may be
susceptible to judicial discretion. Critics argue that the fluidity of
constitutional morality allows judges to impose their personal values and
preferences, potentially undermining democratic principles and the rule of law.
Moreover, there is concern that an overreliance on constitutional morality may
lead to judicial activism, with courts usurping the role of the legislature and
encroaching on policymaking domains best left to elected representatives.
Additionally, some critics question the efficacy of constitutional morality in
addressing entrenched social inequalities and injustices, arguing that legal
reforms alone may not suffice to bring about substantive change without complementary
societal transformations. Furthermore, debates persist over the appropriate
balance between individual rights and collective welfare, as well as the scope
of judicial intervention in matters of public morality and social policy.
Despite these criticisms and debates, the concept of constitutional morality
continues to evolve, shaped by judicial pronouncements, academic discourse, and
societal developments, reflecting the ongoing quest for justice, equality, and
dignity in Indian society.
c)
Instances of Judicial Over-reach or under-reach in the name
of Constitutional Morality:-
Instances of
judicial overreach or under-reach in the name of constitutional morality have
sparked considerable debate and scrutiny in India, raising questions about the
proper limits of judicial intervention and the judiciary's role in shaping
public policy.
One notable
example of judicial overreach occurred in the case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of
India (1994), where the Supreme Court invalidated the imposition of President's
Rule in several states, asserting its authority to review the exercise of
executive power. While the judgment upheld constitutional principles of
federalism and democratic governance, critics argued that the Court's
intervention amounted to encroachment into the executive domain and undermined
the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Similarly, in Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to address sexual
harassment in the workplace, filling a legislative vacuum but also prompting
criticism for judicial activism beyond the traditional bounds of adjudication.
Conversely,
instances of judicial under-reach, where the judiciary has refrained from
intervening in matters of constitutional significance, have also drawn
scrutiny. For example, in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[19],
challenging the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) among Muslims, the
Supreme Court struck down the practice as unconstitutional, citing violations
of gender equality and dignity. However, critics argue that the Court's
decision failed to address broader issues of personal laws and religious
freedoms, reflecting a reluctance to delve into sensitive religious matters.
These
instances illustrate the delicate balance that the judiciary must strike in
exercising judicial review and upholding constitutional morality. While
judicial intervention is essential for safeguarding constitutional values and
protecting fundamental rights, it must be tempered with restraint and
circumspection to avoid overstepping constitutional boundaries and undermining
democratic principles. Similarly, judicial under-reach risks perpetuating
injustices and systemic inequalities, highlighting the need for a nuanced
approach to judicial decision-making that balances legal principles with
respect for institutional roles and societal norms. Ultimately, the challenge
lies in ensuring that judicial activism serves as a bulwark for constitutional
democracy while respecting the democratic mandate and fostering institutional
legitimacy.
V.SREATEGIES FOR ENHANCING AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING
OF CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY:-
Enhancing awareness and
understanding of constitutional morality is crucial for fostering a culture of
constitutionalism and promoting democratic governance in India. Several
strategies can be employed to achieve this goal:
Firstly, educational
reforms are essential to integrate constitutional studies into school and
college curricula. By incorporating constitutional principles, case studies,
and debates into educational programs, students can develop a deeper
understanding of constitutional morality from an early age. This approach not
only cultivates civic responsibility but also instills a sense of appreciation
for democratic values and institutions.
Secondly, public outreach
initiatives, such as workshops, seminars, and public lectures, can be organized
to engage citizens in discussions on constitutional morality. These forums
provide opportunities for dialogue, debate, and exchange of ideas, thereby
promoting greater awareness and understanding of constitutional principles
among diverse segments of society. Collaboration with civil society
organizations, academic institutions, and legal experts can enrich these
initiatives and reach a wider audience.
Thirdly, leveraging
digital platforms and social media can amplify efforts to disseminate
information and resources on constitutional morality. Websites, podcasts, and
social media campaigns can be utilized to share educational materials, case
studies, and interactive content, making constitutional concepts accessible and
engaging for a broader audience. Additionally, online forums and discussion
groups can facilitate ongoing dialogue and knowledge-sharing on constitutional
issues.
Furthermore, legal
literacy programs targeted at vulnerable and marginalized communities can
empower individuals to assert their rights and hold authorities accountable. By
providing information on constitutional rights, legal procedures, and avenues
for redressal, these programs enable citizens to navigate the legal system
effectively and advocate for social justice.
Lastly, fostering a
culture of transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership within
government institutions is essential for upholding constitutional morality. By
promoting integrity, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for human
rights, policymakers and public officials can set positive examples and build
public trust in democratic institutions.
Overall, a multifaceted
approach that combines educational initiatives, public outreach, digital
advocacy, legal empowerment, and ethical leadership is essential for enhancing
awareness and understanding of constitutional morality. By engaging citizens, empowering
communities, and strengthening democratic institutions, we can uphold the
principles of justice, equality, and dignity enshrined in the Indian
Constitution.
VI.ROLE OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND JUDICIAL TRAINING IN
PROMOTING CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES:-
Legal
education and judicial training play a pivotal role in promoting constitutional
values and fostering a culture of constitutionalism among legal practitioners
and judicial officers. Through rigorous academic curricula and specialized
training programs, legal education institutions and judicial academies equip
aspiring lawyers, judges, and legal professionals with the knowledge, skills,
and ethical framework necessary to uphold the principles enshrined in the
Constitution.
Firstly, legal
education provides a solid foundation for understanding constitutional law and
jurisprudence. Law schools and universities offer courses on constitutional
law, human rights, and legal theory, exposing students to key constitutional
principles, landmark judgments, and debates surrounding constitutional
interpretation. By delving into case studies and engaging in critical analysis,
students develop a nuanced understanding of constitutional values such as
justice, equality, liberty, and the rule of law, which form the bedrock of the
legal profession.
Secondly,
judicial training programs play a crucial role in enhancing the competencies
and ethical conduct of judges and judicial officers. Judicial academies offer
specialized courses on constitutional law, judicial ethics, and
decision-making, providing judges with the requisite knowledge and skills to
adjudicate complex constitutional issues effectively. Through interactive
workshops, case simulations, and peer learning platforms, judicial training
programs facilitate discussions on constitutional dilemmas, judicial reasoning,
and the application of constitutional principles in diverse contexts.
Moreover,
legal education and judicial training programs emphasize the importance of
upholding judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity, which are
essential for ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of the judiciary. By
instilling a commitment to ethical conduct and professional excellence, these
programs cultivate a culture of accountability and transparency within the
legal profession, thereby strengthening democratic institutions and upholding
public trust in the judiciary.
Furthermore,
legal education and judicial training foster a sense of responsibility among
legal practitioners and judicial officers to promote access to justice, protect
fundamental rights, and advance social justice objectives. By nurturing a cadre
of competent and conscientious legal professionals, these programs contribute
to the realization of constitutional values in practice and the consolidation
of constitutional democracy in India.
In conclusion,
legal education and judicial training are indispensable tools for promoting
constitutional values and nurturing a cadre of ethical and competent legal
professionals and judicial officers. By imparting knowledge, fostering critical
thinking, and nurturing ethical conduct, these programs contribute to the
advancement of constitutionalism, the protection of fundamental rights, and the
strengthening of democratic governance in India.
VII.CONCLUSION:-
The
exploration of constitutional morality and its application by the Indian
judiciary reveals the intricate interplay between legal principles, societal
norms, and democratic governance. Through landmark judgments and
jurisprudential evolution, the judiciary has endeavored to uphold the
foundational values enshrined in the Constitution, including justice, equality,
liberty, and the rule of law. However, challenges such as judicial overreach,
societal resistance, and institutional constraints persist, highlighting the
complexity of promoting constitutional morality in a diverse and dynamic
society like India. Moving forward, concerted efforts are needed to enhance
awareness, foster dialogue, and strengthen democratic institutions to advance
constitutional values and ensure their meaningful realization for all citizens.
By promoting legal education, judicial training, public engagement, and ethical
leadership, India can cultivate a culture of constitutionalism, uphold the
principles of justice and equality, and forge a path towards a more inclusive
and democratic society. Ultimately, the pursuit of constitutional morality
remains an ongoing endeavor, reflecting the enduring commitment to building a
nation founded on the principles of justice, liberty, and fraternity as
envisioned by the framers of the Indian Constitution.
[3] G.B. Reddy and Baglekar Akash Kumar’s, Transgenders and the Law A
commentary, XIV,(1ST ed., 2022)
[5] C.K. Takwani’s, Lectures on Administrative Law, 20, (6th
ed.,2021).
[6] Article 13, Constitution of India
[8] Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, 1480
[11] Navtej Singh Johar v.
Union of India 2018 INSC 790
[13] S.R. Bommai v. Union of
India, 1994 AIR 1918
[14] Shah Bano v. Union of
India, 1985 AIR 945
[15] M. Nagaraj v. Union of
India, (2006) 8 SSC 212
[18] G.B. Reddy and Baglekar Akash Kumar’s, Transgenders and the Law A
commentary, XV,(1ST ed., 2022)
Article Information
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY AND THE INDIAN JUDICIARY:- EXPLORING THE CONCEPT AND ITS APPLICATION. BY:- ADV. ANUPRITA KULKARNI
Authors: ADV. ANUPRITA KULKARNI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/06
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.