In the modern sense, constitutional morality means abiding by the substantial moral implication that the Constitution carries. However, in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar referred to methods used in policymaking where the Constitution is either silent or grants discretionary powers. He was thus speaking of a strategy that should, at its core, be unanimity of approach, a procedure that works to mediate disputes.
- A liberal-core constitutional morality enabled the creation of the Constitution.
- Not in the eviscerated ideological sense, but in the deeper virtues from which it arose: the ability to combine individuality with mutual regard, intellectualism with a democratic sensibility, conviction with a sense of fallibility, deliberation with decision, ambition with a commitment to institutions, and hope for the future while respecting the past and present.
The Constitution emanates various well-established rights, including among others, which demonstrate constitutional morality in practice:
- Rule of law
- Individual liberty
- Right to equality
- Freedom of choice and expression
- Social justice
- Due process of law
- Procedure established by law
Society does not remain static, changes create new scenarios, and thus the law and constitutional framework must adapt. In Navtej Johar & Ors v Union of India, the Supreme Court established an elaborate mechanism to affirm the rights of people who do not conform to a specific gender. This ensured their life, liberty, dignity, and identity which made this point clear.
The doctrine of constitutional morality is based on the concepts of freedom and self-restraint.
- Self-restraint is a requirement for the smooth operation of the constitutional process.
- Part IV of the Constitution holds the repository of social welfare. It is in the form of Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution.
- Part IV occasionally clashes with Fundamental Rights, which leads to disagreements.
- While addressing these concerns in the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court emphasized the harmonious construction of the two in the true spirit of constitutional morality.
Applicability of Constitutional Morality
The Supreme Court has not explicitly defined the boundaries of constitutional morality. It leaves room for judges to interpret it however they see fit. The idea of constitutional morality, according to critics, is just one more step in the judiciary’s quest. The quest is to limit the authority of Parliament. The judiciary has a long history of attempting to limit the authority of Parliament. Judiciary is given more power than the legislature, resulting in the breaking of the separation of powers. This judicial overreach pits constitutional morality against societal morality.
Conclusion
The constitution, which represents the will of the persons in general, is not an end in it-self. It is a means to achieve social, economic, and political justice, as envisioned in the Preamble. It protects all the channels necessary to carry out the goals of justice. Therefore, if the Constitution fails in this endeavor, it will not be attributed to the Constitution. Instead, it will be attributed to the people charged with preserving and carrying out the Constitution.
The Constitution is woven with liberal values, but not in an ideological sense. This thread must be protected, preserved, upheld, and cherished at all times. Finally, even in situations of extreme necessity, such as the one we are currently facing in the face of an unprecedented pandemic. The Supreme Court need not decide the concept of constitutional morality in every specific instance. To carry out the obligations of a welfare state, the various branches of government at various levels must act. They should not wait for court intervention.
