Public Morality vs Constitutional Morality: A Study of Judicial Balancing in India

The dynamic interplay between public morality and constitutional morality lies at the core of India’s constitutional democracy. Public morality, rooted in societal norms, traditions, and majority beliefs, often influences legal and social frameworks but may also perpetuate exclusionary and regressive practices. In contrast, constitutional morality is founded on the enduring values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including justice, liberty, equality, dignity, and fraternity, serving as a safeguard against majoritarian excesses. This paper critically examines the conceptual foundations, historical evolution, and theoretical dimensions of both public morality and constitutional morality in the Indian context. Through an analysis of landmark judicial pronouncements such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Joseph Shine v. Union of India, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the study highlights the judiciary’s increasing reliance on constitutional morality to uphold fundamental rights and promote transformative constitutionalism. The paper further explores the inherent tensions between these two forms of morality, addressing key concerns such as the majoritarian bias of public morality and the risks of judicial overreach associated with constitutional morality. It argues that while public morality provides necessary social context, constitutional morality must remain the ultimate touchstone for legality and justice in a pluralistic society. The study concludes that a balanced and principled approach is essential to harmonize democratic values with constitutional supremacy, ensuring the protection of individual rights and the advancement of an inclusive legal order.