Social Morality vs. Constitutional Morality

 Ambedkar defined Constitutional morality as the "Effective coordination between the conflicting interests of different people and the administrative cooperation to resolve them amicably without any confrontation amongst the various groups working for the realization of their ends at any cost."

Or 

Constitutional morality refers to the adherence and interpretation of a constitution based on its underlying principles, values, and spirit, rather than on strict textual or literal interpretations. It recognizes that a constitution is a living document that evolves with the changing needs and aspirations of society.

 so there might have been more recent developments. Here are some examples:

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court of India, in this case, established the "basic structure doctrine," which holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament. The judgment invoked constitutional morality to protect the core values of the Constitution.

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): In this case, the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and individual autonomy as enshrined in the Constitution.

3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): This case, popularly known as the "Aadhaar judgment," upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. The judgment recognized privacy as an essential aspect of human dignity and personal autonomy.

4. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court recognized the rights of transgender individuals and affirmed their inclusion in society. The judgment emphasized principles of equality, non-discrimination, and human dignity.

5. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013): This judgment, which was subsequently overturned by Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, criminalizing consensual same-sex relationships. However, it received criticism for its departure from constitutional morality by failing to protect the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Social morality refers to the prevailing moral values, norms, and customs of a particular society or community at a given time. It is shaped by societal attitudes, cultural beliefs, and the collective conscience of the people. On the other hand, constitutional morality, as mentioned earlier, pertains to the interpretation and application of a constitution's principles, values, and spirit.

Here are a few judgments that involve a clash between social morality and constitutional morality:

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court of India, in this case, declared the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) among Muslims as unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the right to life and dignity. The judgment upheld constitutional morality by prioritizing gender justice and individual rights over social practices.

2. Sabarimala Temple Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018): This case revolved around the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, India. The Supreme Court held that the temple's practice of excluding women aged 10-50 from entering the temple was unconstitutional and violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment reflected the clash between social morality and constitutional morality, as it challenged traditional beliefs and customs surrounding the temple.

3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): As mentioned earlier, this judgment struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relationships. The Court emphasized constitutional morality by recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and rejecting societal prejudices and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

4. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the prohibition on alcohol sales in Bihar, even though it faced opposition from the liquor industry and some sections of society. The judgment emphasized that the state government had the power to enact laws in line with its social and moral policies, and it reflected the conflict between social morality regarding alcohol consumption and constitutional morality.

5. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014): This judgment, which recognized the rights of transgender individuals, also involved a clash between social morality and constitutional morality. The Court affirmed the rights of transgender people to self-identify their gender and upheld principles of equality and non-discrimination, despite prevailing societal stigma and discrimination.

These are just a few examples where judgments have grappled with the tension between social morality and constitutional morality. It is important to recognize that the interpretation of morality can vary, and different judgments may take differing positions on the matter based on the specific facts and legal principles involved.