CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY IN INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE: FROM GROTE AND AMBEDKAR TO THE JUDICIAL REVIVAL IN NAVTEJ JOHAR AND SABARIMALA

Abstract

### Abstract The doctrine of constitutional morality has emerged as one of the most influential yet contested principles in contemporary Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Although introduced by George Grote as a concept emphasizing respect for constitutional institutions and later adapted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the framing of the Indian Constitution, it remained largely absent from judicial discourse for several decades. Its revival in landmark Supreme Court decisions such as *Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India* and *Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala)* transformed constitutional morality from a procedural constitutional ethic into a substantive judicial doctrine grounded in liberty, equality, dignity, and fraternity. This paper examines the historical evolution, doctrinal development, and contemporary application of constitutional morality in Indian constitutional law. It traces the concept from Grote's procedural understanding to Ambedkar's vision of democratic constitutional culture and critically evaluates its reinterpretation by the Supreme Court. Through a detailed analysis of the *Navtej Johar* and *Sabarimala* judgments, the paper highlights the doctrine's strengths in protecting fundamental rights and minority interests while identifying significant concerns relating to judicial subjectivity, doctrinal indeterminacy, institutional competence, and democratic legitimacy. The study further adopts a comparative constitutional approach by examining jurisprudence from South Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States to identify mechanisms that balance constitutional values with judicial restraint. It argues that constitutional morality should function as a structured interpretative principle rather than an unrestricted source of judicial discretion. Accordingly, the paper proposes a disciplined framework incorporating proportionality analysis, stronger textual anchoring, and institutional safeguards to enhance the doctrine's legitimacy and consistency. It concludes that constitutional morality remains an indispensable constitutional ideal for advancing transformative constitutionalism, but its continued legitimacy depends upon principled application, doctrinal clarity, and appropriate judicial restraint.