Centre Tells Supreme Court That Constitutional Morality Cannot Override 'Good Law': What It Means for the Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine Legacy

The Union government's submission that the decriminalisation of homosexuality and adultery rested on a flawed use of 'constitutional morality' reopens a foundational debate about how much the Constitution can override majoritarian morality embedded in ordinary law.

The Union government has told the Supreme Court that two landmark rulings — Navtej Singh Johar (which decriminalised consensual same-sex relations) and Joseph Shine (which struck down adultery as a crime) — relied on an over-extended reading of 'constitutional morality', making them doubtful precedent. This submission has reopened debate on both judgments before the Court itself.

Constitutional morality refers to the idea that constitutional values of dignity, equality and liberty can override majoritarian morality reflected in ordinary criminal law. The Centre's argument questions how far courts can invoke this principle to override legislative choices, touching the core separation-of-powers and judicial-review debate central to Indian polity.

For exams, remember: Navtej Singh Johar (2018) read down Section 377 IPC; Joseph Shine (2018) struck down Section 497 IPC on adultery; both relied heavily on 'constitutional morality' as a ground for protecting individual dignity against majoritarian disapproval, now questioned by the Union government.