Supreme Court Bench Questions ‘Constitutional Morality’ in Religious Freedom Cases – Centre’s Stand — UPSC Current Affairs

On 8 April 2026, the Union Government, before a nine‑judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, argued that the de‑criminalisation of adultery and same‑sex relations rests on a subjective notion of constitutional morality and should be deemed "not a good law". The hearing, linked to petitions on gender discrimination at religious sites like Sabarimala, seeks to define the scope of morality under Articles 25‑26, a pivotal issue for UPSC Polity and Ethics preparation.

Overview On 8 April 2026 , the Union Government appeared before a nine‑judge Supreme Court Constitution bench chaired by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant . The Centre argued that the landmark judgments de‑criminalising adultery and recognising same‑sex consensual relationships were based on a subjective reading of constitutional morality and therefore should not be treated as "good law". Key Developments The bench is hearing petitions on discrimination against women at religious sites, notably the Sabarimala temple . Seven questions have been framed to delineate the scope of Articles 25 and 26 , especially the meaning of “morality”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that constitutional morality is a sentiment, not a testable doctrine for legislation. The Centre seeks a declaration that the two earlier judgments are "not a good law", implying they should be revisited or limited. Important Facts The two judgments under scrutiny are: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – De‑criminalised consensual same‑sex relations under Section 377 of the IPC. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Struck down the criminalisation of adultery. Both relied heavily on the doctrine of constitutional morality to uphold individual liberty over traditional moral codes. UPSC Relevance Understanding the tension between constitutional morality and "social morality" is essential for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) papers. The case illustrates: How the judiciary interprets fundamental rights vis‑à‑vis religious freedom. The role of the Union Government in shaping jurisprudence through its legal submissions. The procedural aspect of a Constitution bench framing questions, a key feature of Indian constitutional law. Way Forward While the live blog is closed, the following trajectories are likely: The bench may clarify whether "morality" under Articles 25‑26 includes a constitutional dimension, setting a precedent for future religious‑freedom disputes. A pronouncement that the earlier judgments are "not a good law" could trigger legislative attempts to re‑criminalise adultery or restrict LGBTQ+ rights, raising constitutional challenges. For aspirants, monitoring subsequent judgments will be crucial to answer essay and case‑study questions on the balance between individual rights and religious practices. In sum, the hearing underscores the dynamic interplay between law, morality, and politics in India’s constitutional democracy.

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>On <strong>8 April 2026</strong>, the Union Government appeared before a nine‑judge <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court – India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes involving the Union, states and fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> Constitution bench chaired by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India Surya Kant – The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, heading the Constitution bench (GS2: Polity)">Chief Justice of India Surya Kant</span>. The Centre argued that the landmark judgments de‑criminalising adultery and recognising same‑sex consensual relationships were based on a subjective reading of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality – The principle that constitutional values such as liberty, equality and dignity must guide law‑making, even if they clash with prevailing social mores (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> and therefore should not be treated as "good law".</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench is hearing petitions on discrimination against women at religious sites, notably the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala temple – A prominent Hindu shrine in Kerala where women of menstruating age were traditionally barred, raising questions of gender equality and religious freedom (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala temple</span>.</li> <li>Seven questions have been framed to delineate the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Articles 25 and 26 – Constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of conscience, religion, and the right to manage religious affairs (GS2: Polity)">Articles 25 and 26</span>, especially the meaning of “morality”.</li> <li><span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General Tushar Mehta – The Union’s chief legal advisor who represents the government before the Supreme Court (GS2: Polity)">Solicitor General Tushar Mehta</span> contended that constitutional morality is a sentiment, not a testable doctrine for legislation.</li> <li>The Centre seeks a declaration that the two earlier judgments are "not a good law", implying they should be revisited or limited.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The two judgments under scrutiny are:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)</strong> – De‑criminalised consensual same‑sex relations under Section 377 of the IPC.</li> <li><strong>Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)</strong> – Struck down the criminalisation of adultery.</li> </ul> <p>Both relied heavily on the doctrine of constitutional morality to uphold individual liberty over traditional moral codes.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the tension between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Constitutional morality – The principle that constitutional values such as liberty, equality and dignity must guide law‑making, even if they clash with prevailing social mores (GS2: Polity)">constitutional morality</span> and "social morality" is essential for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) papers. The case illustrates:</p> <ul> <li>How the judiciary interprets fundamental rights vis‑à‑vis religious freedom.</li> <li>The role of the Union Government in shaping jurisprudence through its legal submissions.</li> <li>The procedural aspect of a Constitution bench framing questions, a key feature of Indian constitutional law.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>While the live blog is closed, the following trajectories are likely:</p> <ul> <li>The bench may clarify whether "morality" under Articles 25‑26 includes a constitutional dimension, setting a precedent for future religious‑freedom disputes.</li> <li>A pronouncement that the earlier judgments are "not a good law" could trigger legislative attempts to re‑criminalise adultery or restrict LGBTQ+ rights, raising constitutional challenges.</li> <li>For aspirants, monitoring subsequent judgments will be crucial to answer essay and case‑study questions on the balance between individual rights and religious practices.</li> </ul> <p>In sum, the hearing underscores the dynamic interplay between law, morality, and politics in India’s constitutional democracy.</p>

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay