Constitutional Morality and Judicial Consistency: A Critical Study of Supreme Court Jurisprudence from Navtej Johar to Supriyo

Constitutional morality has surfaced as a powerful doctrine in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court had decisively used it to answer ambiguous and complex constitutional questions, like decriminalising consensual same-sex relations in Navtej Singh Johar and overriding a traditional discriminatory practice in the Sabrimala judgment. Yet when the same community returned to the court with their next constitutional claim in the Supriyo case, the doctrine that was so powerfully impeached to protect their rights was conspicuously absent. This paper examines the several meanings of constitutional morality, starting from Ambedkar’s vision of it to the various interpretations given by the Supreme Court. Further, this paper analyses the inconsistency in the application of constitutional morality across different cases ruled by the Supreme Court and addresses a central question that arises about the consequences of the inconsistent application of constitutional morality.