Definition
The principle, articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and developed by the Supreme Court, that governance must adhere to the values, norms, and ethos of the Constitution itself — even when popular morality demands otherwise.
Constitutional morality is the idea that adherence to the Constitution's foundational values — equality, liberty, dignity, fraternity — must prevail over social or popular morality when they conflict. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned in the Constituent Assembly: 'Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it.' The Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 (decriminalisation of homosexuality) held that constitutional morality must override social morality — even if the majority of society disapproves of certain conduct, constitutional values of dignity and equality may protect it.
Statutory Definition
No statutory provision — constitutional morality is a jurisprudential concept. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar introduced it in the Constituent Assembly Debates (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, November 4, 1948). Developed judicially in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case, 2018), and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
Etymology & Origin
Coined by George Grote (1794-1871) in his 'History of Greece' to describe the Athenian commitment to constitutional governance even when it was personally costly. Ambedkar adopted the concept and applied it to India — arguing that constitutional norms must be internalized by all citizens, not just enforced by courts.
Full Legal Analysis
Constitutional Morality: The Constitution Against the Crowd
Constitutional morality is the Constitution’s insistence that what is constitutional may not be what is popular, and that constitutional values — not majority preference — must govern in a rights-based democracy. The concept reflects a deep tension in democratic theory: if democracy means majority rule, why should minority rights override majority preferences? Constitutional morality's answer: because the Constitution itself embodies a higher morality — the dignity, equality, and liberty of every person — which the founders committed to protect against even democratic majorities.
Ambedkar's Warning
In the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, Dr. Ambedkar said: “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” He foresaw that social inequality, caste, and majority sentiment would challenge the constitutional commitment to equality — and that cultivating constitutional morality was essential for the Constitution to be truly transformative.
Navtej Singh Johar: Constitutional vs. Social Morality
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 IPC (criminalising consensual same-sex sexual activity) as unconstitutional. The Court explicitly held that 'constitutional morality' — the Constitution's commitment to dignity, equality, and autonomy — must prevail over 'social morality' (the majority's disapproval of homosexuality). The Court recognised that popular sentiment may lag behind constitutional values, and the Court's role is to uphold the Constitution, not to reflect the majority's prejudices.
Sabarimala: Constitutional Morality in Religious Practice
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case 2018) 9 SCC 1, the majority held that the exclusion of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) from the Sabarimala temple violated constitutional morality — the constitutional values of equality and dignity override religious custom where the custom discriminates based on physiological sex characteristics. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's concurring opinion most fully articulated constitutional morality as a tool of transformative constitutionalism.
“Constitutional morality is not what the majority believes to be right. It is what the Constitution declares to be right. When they conflict, the Constitution prevails — for that is what it means to be a constitutional democracy.” — Navtej Singh Johar (2018)
