Revision summary
Constitutional morality is fidelity to liberty, equality, dignity and the rule of law in the Constitution itself. Kesavananda (1973) locked those essential facets as basic structure. Navtej Johar (2018) preferred constitutional morality over social morality on Section 377. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala, 2018) tested temple exclusion against Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25. NCT of Delhi (2018) used the doctrine to restrain a parallel Lieutenant Governor against an elected government.
Model answer
Introduction
Constitutional morality is loyalty to the Constitution’s own values — liberty, equality, dignity, fraternity, and the rule of law — rather than to shifting social majorities. Indian benches have treated it as a doctrine rooted in the text and in the basic structure, not as a preacher’s extra-constitutional ethic.
Body
Meaning of the doctrine
- Dr B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, warned that democracy in India needed constitutional morality: a habit of respecting institutions and limits, not only a one-time vote.
- The doctrine asks courts and governments to prefer the Constitution’s essential facets over popular morality, religious custom, or administrative convenience when those clash with Part III and the basic structure.
- It is not a licence for judges to invent a private code; it is a method of reading Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 together with the Preamble.
Kesavananda and the moral compact
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that the basic structure cannot be destroyed even by a constitutional amendment, which is the deepest judicial statement that the Constitution has unamendable moral-legal facets.
- Supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, and judicial review are those facets; constitutional morality is the everyday name for remaining faithful to them.
Navtej Johar, Sabarimala, and NCT Delhi
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) struck down the criminalisation of consensual same-sex relations under Section 377, holding that constitutional morality protects dignity and intimacy against majoritarian social morality.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala, 2018) held that exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Ayyappa temple failed Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25 when tested against constitutional morality, not against a claimed essential religious practice alone.
- Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) used constitutional morality and collaborative federalism to read the Lieutenant Governor as a constitutional functionary who must ordinarily go with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not as a parallel executive.
- Together these cases show the doctrine at work in personal liberty, religious access, and federal governance.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD T[Constitution Preamble Part III] --> M[Constitutional morality] K[Kesavananda basic structure] --> M N[Navtej Johar dignity] --> M S[Sabarimala equality in worship] --> M D[NCT Delhi collaborative federalism] --> M
Conclusion
Constitutional morality is rooted in the Constitution because it names the essential facets that Kesavananda protected as basic structure and that later benches applied against social morality, temple exclusion, and central overreach in Delhi. The doctrine binds courts and executives to the Preamble and Part III, not to the crowd of the day.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2021 · Q13). View answer →
-
Is constitutional morality the same as public morality under Article 19 or 25?
No. Public morality in those Articles is a ground of restriction. Constitutional morality is the Constitution’s own hierarchy of values, which can defeat a popular or religious claim.
-
Did Sabarimala invent the doctrine?
No. The phrase is older in Indian public law. Sabarimala, Navtej Johar and NCT Delhi applied it to concrete clashes with social and administrative power.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
More from this topic
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Indian Constitution
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Indian Constitution
Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.