Introduction:
The distinction between constitutional morality and societal morality has emerged as a key theme in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. While many often portray them as being in conflict, this binary is overly simplistic and does not capture their dynamic and evolving relationship.
Understanding the Concepts:
- Constitutional morality refers to adherence to core constitutional values such as justice, liberty, equality, dignity, and rule of law.
- Societal morality reflects prevailing social norms, traditions, and cultural practices, which may vary across time and communities.
Why They Are Seen in Conflict:
- Courts often intervene when societal practices violate fundamental rights (e.g., caste discrimination, gender injustice).
- In such cases, constitutional morality is invoked as a transformative tool to reform regressive social norms.
- Example: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court prioritized constitutional morality over majoritarian social disapproval.
Limitations of the Binary View:
- Oversimplification of Society: Society is not homogeneous; multiple moralities coexist across regions, classes, and groups.
- Dynamic Nature of Morality: Societal morality evolves over time, often influenced by constitutional values themselves.
- Mutual Reinforcement: Constitutional morality can shape and reform societal morality (e.g., abolition of untouchability), while societal acceptance ensures effective implementation of constitutional principles.
- Judicial Selectivity: Courts may inconsistently invoke constitutional morality, leading to accusations of subjectivity or overreach.
Judicial Approach in India:
- The judiciary has adopted a transformative constitutionalism approach, using constitutional morality to expand rights.
- However, it also shows restraint in culturally sensitive issues, acknowledging societal complexities.
- Example: In Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018), the Court upheld gender equality, but subsequent review and public response reflected tension between legal ideals and social acceptance.
Need for a Balanced Approach:
- Courts should avoid a rigid binary and adopt a harmonization approach:
- Uphold fundamental rights as non-negotiable.
- Recognize gradual social transformation rather than abrupt imposition.
- Encourage democratic dialogue alongside judicial intervention.
Conclusion:
The relationship between constitutional morality and societal morality is not inherently antagonistic but interactive and evolving. Judicial decision-making must move beyond the binary framework and strive to balance transformative constitutional values with social realities to ensure both legitimacy and effectiveness.
La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2026 preparation.
FOLLOW US ON:
◉ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam
◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS
◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/
GET IN TOUCH:
Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/
or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140
OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020
Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081
Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040