"Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…"In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.

Constitutional morality: meaning and scope

• Constitutional values over social prejudice: It requires constitutional morality to prevail where prevailing social morality conflicts with equality, liberty and dignity.
  • Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Constitutional values of dignity and equality prevailed over social prejudice in decriminalising consensual same-sex relations.
  • Sabarimala judgment (2018): The Court invoked constitutional morality in addressing exclusion of women and the conflict between equality and customary practice.
• Constitutional process over personal or political convenience: It requires institutions to exercise power within constitutional limits.
  • Manoj Narula v. Union of India: Emphasised constitutional morality in relation to constitutional governance and standards expected from high public offices.
  • Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India: Applied constitutional principles of federalism, constitutional governance and institutional cooperation.
• Check on both State and citizens: It prevents high functionaries from exercising arbitrary power while also preventing majoritarian social sentiment from overriding constitutional rights.
  • Thus, constitutional morality operates upward against State power and horizontally against social majoritarianism.

Balancing judicial independence and judicial accountability

Judicial independence

• Independence as a constitutional necessity: Judges must be protected from executive and political pressure so that they can enforce fundamental rights and review State action.
  • Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, within which judicial independence is an essential constitutional principle.
  • Second and Third Judges Cases: Strengthened the judicial role in appointments through the collegium system, seeking insulation from executive dominance.
• NJAC judgment, 2015: The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act, holding that excessive executive influence in judicial appointments could undermine judicial independence.
• Constitutional morality therefore prevents the executive or legislature from converting judicial appointments into an instrument of political control.

Judicial accountability

• Independence cannot become immunity: Constitutional morality also requires judges to remain accountable to constitutional standards of fairness, integrity and institutional transparency.
• Impeachment: Articles 124(4) and 218 provide the constitutional mechanism for removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• In-house procedure: Provides a peer-review mechanism for complaints against judges falling short of the extremely high parliamentary threshold of impeachment.
• K. Veeraswami case: Recognised that judges are not completely beyond the reach of criminal law, while prescribing safeguards for such proceedings.
• Transparency:
  • Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019): Held the Office of the CJI to be a public authority under the RTI Act, while balancing transparency with judicial independence.
  • Swapnil Tripathi (2018): Supported live-streaming of court proceedings in appropriate cases, enhancing public access and institutional transparency.
• Ethical self-regulation: The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct provide standards relating to impartiality, integrity and avoidance of conflicts of interest.

The constitutional balance

• Too much independence → institutional opacity: A judiciary completely insulated from scrutiny can risk becoming a closed institutional “guild”.
• Too much accountability through the executive → judicial subordination: Executive control over appointments or disciplinary mechanisms can compromise impartial adjudication.
• Constitutional morality provides the middle path: It demands independence from the executive + accountability to constitutional values.
  • Therefore, the objective is neither a “judicial fortress” nor an “executive-controlled judiciary”, but an institution that is independent in decision-making and accountable in conduct.