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.