An Analysis of the Essentiality of Constitutional Morality In Contemporary India

Abstract

Constitutional morality has not been defined in the Constitution but inferences to its meaning have been made through judgements. One such judgement would be the Sabarimala case2 , wherein the Court stated the definition of constitutional morality in the verdict. It stated that, “We must remember that when there is a violation of the fundamental rights, the term ‘morality’ naturally implies constitutional morality and any view that is ultimately taken by the Constitutional Courts must be in conformity with the principles and basic tenets of the concept of this constitutional morality….”3 . The aforementioned statement was made with reference to Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution. The doctrine of constitutional morality was exercised as opposed to the doctrine of essentiality, the latter doctrine that was espoused in the Shirur Mutt case4 by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court wherein the Court took upon the task of deciding and bifurcating between the essential and non-essential practices of religion. The Judiciary went against the autonomy of customary religious practices and hence, the judgement was highly criticized due to the deemed usage of constitutional morality as judicial overreach. Instances of constitutional morality is imperative despite the popular opinions of society as the Judiciary is the only body capable of ensuring an individual’s Fundamental Rights when the State fails to do so through the laws it enacts.