The doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ refers to the adherence to the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution. It is the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with its underlying moral and ethical foundations. The doctrine recognizes that the Constitution is not merely a legal document but also a moral code that guides the functioning of the government and protects the rights and liberties of individuals.

The Supreme Court of India has emphasized the significance of ‘Constitutional Morality’ in several landmark decisions. One such case is the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case. In this case, the court held that the constitutional amendments must pass the test of basic constitutional principles and values, which are rooted in ‘Constitutional Morality’. The court recognized that the Constitution contains certain core principles, such as the rule of law, equality, secularism, and democracy, which form the essence of ‘Constitutional Morality’.

Another important case that reflects the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ is Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). In this case, the court decriminalized consensual homosexual activity by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the moral disapproval of a particular sexual orientation cannot be a valid ground for denying the constitutional rights of individuals. The judgment emphasized the importance of ‘Constitutional Morality’ in eliminating discrimination and upholding the dignity of all individuals.

Furthermore, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), commonly known as the Aadhaar judgment, the court affirmed that ‘Constitutional Morality’ demands the protection of an individual's right to privacy. The court held that privacy is an inherent part of human dignity and personal autonomy, and therefore, any infringement on privacy must be justified by compelling state interest.

In all these cases, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in isolation from its moral and ethical foundations. The doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ ensures that the law adheres to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and promotes a just and inclusive society. It serves as a guiding principle for the judiciary to interpret the Constitution in a manner consistent with its underlying values and to protect the rights and liberties of individuals.

Constitutional Morality: A Foundation for Judicial Interpretation

The doctrine of "Constitutional Morality" plays a crucial role in the interpretation of a country's Constitution, particularly in the absence of explicit provisions on certain issues. It acts as a guiding principle, drawing upon the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution to inform judicial decisions on contemporary problems.

Here's a breakdown of the doctrine:

1. Rooted in the Constitution:

• Constitutional Morality is not a separate set of values. It arises directly from the Constitution's inherent principles, such as:
• Democracy: Rule of law, free and fair elections, and individual participation.
• Equality: Non-discrimination based on religion, caste, gender, etc.
• Justice: Fairness, impartiality, and access to legal remedies.
• Liberty: Freedom of speech, expression, movement, and assembly.
• Fraternity: Promoting unity and harmony among diverse groups.

2. Judicial Interpretation and Evolution:

• Judges, while bound by the Constitution's text, use Constitutional Morality to interpret ambiguous provisions and resolve contemporary issues that weren't foreseen by the framers.
• This involves a dynamic process where judicial decisions build upon previous interpretations, shaping the evolving understanding of Constitutional Morality.

3. Relevant Judicial Decisions:

• India:
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case established the concept of "right to life" as encompassing not just biological survival but also a dignified existence. The Court, using Constitutional Morality, read into Article 21 (Right to Life) the right to a fair trial, access to justice, and freedom from arbitrary state action.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Recognizing the need to address sexual harassment at workplaces, the Court, drawing upon the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution, laid down guidelines for preventing and addressing sexual harassment.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court, drawing upon the principle of federalism, upheld the right of states to govern their own affairs, setting limits on the power of the central government.
• United States:
• Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): The Court struck down a state law prohibiting contraception, drawing upon the right to privacy implied by the Constitution, even though it was not explicitly mentioned.
• Roe v. Wade (1973): The Court declared a woman's right to abortion as part of her right to privacy, again implying the right from the Constitution.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Court recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, based on the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

4. Challenges and Criticisms:

• Subjectivity: Some critics argue that Constitutional Morality is subjective and open to interpretation, leading to judicial activism and potentially contradicting the intent of the framers.
• Evolution and Change: The evolving nature of Constitutional Morality can be seen as a sign of its strength, but it also raises concerns about potential inconsistency and changes in societal values.

5. Significance:

Despite the challenges, Constitutional Morality plays a vital role in ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and responsive to the evolving needs of society. It allows for the interpretation of the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values and addresses new issues while remaining faithful to its core principles.

Conclusion:

Constitutional Morality is a powerful tool for judicial interpretation, guiding judges in applying the Constitution to contemporary issues. It ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and dynamic, safeguarding fundamental rights and values even in the face of changing circumstances. However, the doctrine's application must be balanced with considerations of textual interpretation, democratic values, and respect for the rule of law.

"Constitutional Morality" is a doctrine that emerged in Indian jurisprudence, which emphasizes that the Constitution of India is not just a document of laws, but also embodies a moral framework that guides the interpretation and application of its provisions. This concept is rooted in the Constitution's Preamble, fundamental rights, and directive principles.

The doctrine of Constitutional Morality was first articulated by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark judgment of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994). In this case, the Court held that the Constitution is not just a document of principles, but also a document of values and morality. The Court observed that "Constitutional Morality" is an integral part of our constitutional system, which implies that the Constitution is not just a body of norms, but also a system of values.

In Naz Foundation vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009), the Court further elaborated on Constitutional Morality. The Court held that Constitutional Morality is not separate from the Constitution, but is an inherent part of it. It is the moral principles and values that underlie the Constitution, which guide the interpretation of its provisions. The Court observed that Constitutional Morality is not limited to the literal meaning of the words, but also encompasses the spirit and essence of the Constitution.

In National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India (2014), the Court recognized the right to self-identification of gender identity as a fundamental right, and held that Constitutional Morality demands that the State recognize and protect the rights of transgender persons. The Court observed that Constitutional Morality is not static, but is a dynamic concept that evolves with the changing needs and values of society.

In Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017), the Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and held that Constitutional Morality is the foundation of the right to privacy. The Court observed that Constitutional Morality is not limited to the protection of individual rights, but also encompasses the protection of collective rights and the promotion of social justice.

In Navtej Johar vs. Union of India (2018), the Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, and held that Constitutional Morality demands that the State recognize and protect the rights of LGBTQ individuals. The Court observed that Constitutional Morality is not limited to the written words of the Constitution, but also encompasses the unwritten values and principles that underlie it.

In conclusion, the doctrine of Constitutional Morality is a fundamental principle of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, which emphasizes that the Constitution is not just a document of laws, but also embodies a moral framework that guides the interpretation and application of its provisions. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Constitutional Morality is rooted in the Constitution itself, and is founded on its essential facets, including the Preamble, fundamental rights, and directive principles.