CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY OF INDIA VS POPULAR MORALITY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

This article critically tracks the rise of constitutional morality in Indian jurisprudence, following its intellectual lineage from George Grote, through Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s memorable deployment of the idea in the Constituent Assembly, to its present-day use by the Supreme Court. Although the phrase never appears verbatim in the Constitution, constitutional morality has steadily hardened into a key interpretive device for handling clashes between
individual fundamental rights and dominant social expectations. By reading landmark rulings such as Naz Foundation, Puttaswamy, Navtej Singh Johar, and the Sabarimala controversy together, this article argues that
constitutional morality operates as a self-conscious judicial method for placing the Constitution’s transformative ethos above fleeting majoritarian moods. Still, the doctrine carries real difficulties: conceptual vagueness, anxiety about judicial subjectivity, doubts about democratic legitimacy, and the stubborn challenge of nurturing constitutional values in a society where, as Ambedkar warned, democracy is “a top-dressing on an Indian soil essentially undemocratic.” The article ends with recommendations to sharpen the doctrine’s internal coherence, while also accepting a basic truth: its long-term life can’t depend on courtrooms alone, but must be cultivated through legislatures, educational institutions, and sustained citizen participation.