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
-
Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.
Next question in the 2021 paper (Q2). 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 paper
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.
Executive and Judiciary
Women remain under-represented on Supreme Court and High Court benches despite a large pool at the Bar. Diversity improves judging in gender, family and workplace cases; equity and inclusiveness are Articles 14–16 values the Court itself enforces. The filter is informal networks and seniority practice, not a constitutional ban. Publish data, widen the district-judge and senior-advocate pool, and name gender diversity as a collegium criterion. Inclusion is about legitimacy of the Bench, not about a single judicial ideology.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the states to improve their fiscal position?
Governance and Policy
The 14th Finance Commission raised States’ share in the divisible pool from 32 to 42 per cent for 2015–20. Untied devolution, not only CSS, let States fund their own priorities and borrow on a more predictable base. Horizontal criteria helped poorer and forested States; revenue-deficit grants closed residual gaps. Local-body and disaster grants reduced raids on State revenue for third-tier and calamity costs. Cesses outside the pool and later GST shocks limited the gain; the 15th FC kept devolution near that high watermark at 41 per cent.
Q4 · UPSC Mains 2021 · GS II · 10 marks
To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?
Parliament and State Legislatures
Collective responsibility, questions, money votes, CAG audit and the PAC are the core accountability tools. PAC, usually Opposition-chaired, is the sharpest regular fiscal check on the executive. Disruptions, the Tenth Schedule whip, ordinances and thin committee reference reduce daily control. Parliament can still unseat a government and expose waste; it is not a rubber stamp, and it is not a full-time scrutineer either. Protecting Question Hour and default committee scrutiny would widen the extent without rewriting the Constitution.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.