CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY VS. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Introduction:

India is a land rich in cultural and religious diversity. The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, while also placing limits to ensure equality, dignity, and justice. These limits often create a delicate balance between freedom of religion and constitutional morality. Religion has deep roots in Indian society, but constitutional morality functions as a guiding principle ensuring that all actions and customs conform to the ideals of the Constitution. The Indian judiciary has frequently faced the challenge of balancing these two principles, particularly when religious traditions come into conflict with fundamental rights. This tension is most evident in three landmark judgments the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case[1], the Triple Talaq Case[2], and the Homosexuality Case[3] under Section 377. Each of these decisions demonstrates how the Supreme Court has placed constitutional morality above religious traditions when those traditions violate the basic rights of individuals.

Meaning of Constitutional Morality:

Constitutional morality refers to a faithful commitment to the values and spirit of the Constitution rather than blind adherence to age-old customs or social norms. It signifies respect for liberty, equality, justice, and fraternity the core values of the Preamble. It expects citizens as well as institutions to act in accordance with these values even when doing so challenges traditional beliefs. Constitutional morality serves as an ethical foundation that prevents the abuse of authority and safeguards individuals from oppression in the name of religion or custom.

Key elements of constitutional morality include:

1. Respecting the rule of law over personal or religious preferences.
2. Protecting individual freedom and dignity.
3. Ensuring equality among all citizens regardless of gender, caste, or faith.
4. Promoting rational, humane, and progressive interpretations of law.

In simpler words, constitutional morality ensures that democracy is not just about majority rule, but about protecting every individual’s rights, particularly those of minorities and marginalized communities.

Meaning of Freedom of Religion:

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions allow individuals to freely choose, practice, and propagate their religion. Religious groups are also allowed to manage their own affairs. However, this right is not absolute it is subject to public order, morality, and health. This means that no religious practice can harm others or violate fundamental rights such as equality and dignity. The Indian Constitution also ensures secularism, meaning the State neither promotes nor discriminates against any religion, but treats all equally. Therefore, if a religious custom becomes oppressive or discriminatory, it can be restricted in the interest of constitutional morality.

Judicial Interpretation through Landmark Cases:

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala[4]:

The Sabarimala temple in Kerala traditionally restricted the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50, considering them “impure” during menstruation. Devotees believed this was necessary to maintain the celibate nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa. However, women’s rights activists challenged this ban, claiming it violated constitutional rights and equality.

Judgment: A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, ruled that women of all ages must be allowed entry into the temple. The Court held that excluding women based on biological factors violated their rights to equality and freedom of religion.

The majority opinion emphasized that:

• Religious freedom cannot override fundamental rights.
• The exclusion of women based on gender and biology is unconstitutional.
• The practice was not an essential part of religion and hence not protected under Article 26.

Significance: The Court clearly established that constitutional morality stands above traditional religious practices. It held that faith cannot be used as a justification for discrimination, and women’s dignity must always be protected. This judgment represented a major step toward achieving gender equality in religious spaces.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India[5]:

The practice of instant triple talaq allowed a Muslim husband to divorce his wife instantly by uttering the word “talaq” three times in one sitting. This left many women without financial or emotional support. Shayara Bano and other Muslim women challenged this practice as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Judgment: The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional.

The Court held that:

• Triple talaq violated the rights to equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21.
• It was not an essential religious practice and thus not protected under Article 25.
• Constitutional morality required personal laws to align with the fundamental rights of the Constitution.

Significance: This verdict reaffirmed that no religious custom can suppress the rights of individuals, especially women. The Court upheld gender justice and equality over regressive traditions, strengthening the idea that constitutional principles must prevail over patriarchal norms.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[6]:

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law, criminalized sexual acts “against the order of nature,” and was used to target and harass homosexual individuals. Members of the LGBTQ+ community challenged this provision as unconstitutional and violative of their fundamental rights.

Judgment: A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 377 insofar as it criminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults.

The Court declared that:

• Sexual orientation is a natural and intrinsic part of individual identity protected under the right to life and privacy.
• Section 377 violated the rights to equality, freedom of expression, and dignity.
• Constitutional morality demands acceptance of diversity and protection of minority rights from social prejudice.

Significance: The judgment was a milestone for inclusivity and equality. The Court held that societal morality cannot dictate constitutional rights. It emphasized that constitutional morality requires respect for liberty and human dignity, even if such rights challenge conservative social or religious beliefs.

Comparative Analysis:

All three cases reveal a consistent judicial approach swhen religious practices conflict with fundamental rights, constitutional morality prevails.

• In the Sabarimala case, gender equality triumphed over religious exclusion.
• In the Triple Talaq case, women’s dignity was prioritized over arbitrary religious customs.
• In the Homosexuality case, personal liberty and identity were upheld over moral conservatism.

These judgments show that the Constitution is not merely a legal framework but a living document that adapts to changing times and values. The judiciary has played a crucial role in ensuring that religious freedom does not extend to practices that violate equality and human dignity. Constitutional morality thus safeguards India’s democratic and secular fabric, ensuring that faith operates within the boundaries of justice and equality.

Conclusion:

The debate between constitutional morality and freedom of religion represents India’s continuing journey between tradition and progress. The Constitution respects every faith but does not allow practices that compromise equality or dignity. The Sabarimala, Triple Talaq, and Homosexuality judgments clearly demonstrate that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld constitutional morality as the higher principle. The judiciary has emphasized that customs or beliefs cannot stand in the way of justice and human rights. Constitutional morality ensures that democracy remains inclusive, fair, and humane. It protects individuals from social oppression, upholds gender and minority rights, and preserves the spirit of liberty envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. In essence, constitutional morality is the soul of Indian democracy reminding us that the true test of national progress lies not in preserving outdated traditions, but in courageously upholding justice, equality, and human dignity for all.

REFERENCE:

• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639357/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115701246/

[1] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (India).

[2] Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 (India).

[3] Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India).

[4] (2019) 11 SCC 1 (India).

[5] AIR 2017 SC 4609

[6] AIR 2018 SC 4321