<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)">constitutiona