Challenging the Verdict: Examining the Constitutionality of the Allahabad High Court's Judgment on Personal Relations : Daily News Analysis

Date : 15/07/2023

Relevance: GS Paper 2: Polity - Judiciary

Keywords: Kiran Rawat vs State of UP Verdict, Constitutional morality, Fundamental Rights, Personal liberty

Context -

  • The recent verdict by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kiran Rawat vs State of UP has attracted nationwide attention for its refusal to grant protection to an inter-faith couple in a live-in relationship who sought relief from police harassment. This judgment goes against the principles of constitutional morality that the Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld.

Role of CJI in Supreme Court: First amongst equals : Daily News ...

Constitutional Morality

Constitutional morality, as defined by Dr. Ambedkar, encompasses the effective coordination and cooperation required to resolve conflicting interests among different individuals and groups. It emphasizes the importance of administrative cooperation in achieving ends without confrontations. Constitutional morality is considered to be a paramount reverence for the Constitution, providing a principled understanding of governance and accountability.

Supreme Court's Judgements and Constitutional Morality:

  • Constitutional morality goes beyond a literal adherence to constitutional provisions. It is rooted in values such as individual autonomy, liberty, equality without discrimination, recognition of identity with dignity, and the right to privacy.
  • The Supreme Court has played a significant role in upholding constitutional morality through its judgments. Notable examples include the Sabarimala verdict, which reinstated religious freedom and gender equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.
  • The Court struck down the practice of banning entry of women of a certain age to the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, deeming it unconstitutional.
  • In other cases like Kesavananda Bharati, Naz Foundation, and Lt Governor of Delhi, the Court reiterated the importance of constitutional morality in limiting parliamentary power, distinguishing between constitutional and public morality, and preserving people's trust in democratic institutions.

Significance of Constitutional Morality:

  • Constitutional morality ensures the establishment of the rule of law in the land and integrates the changing aspirations and ideals of society.
  • It serves as a guiding principle for governance and accountability, allowing institutions to survive and operate in accordance with not just the text but the soul of the Constitution.
  • Constitutional morality also holds governing institutions and representatives accountable to the people. By using laws and forms, constitutional morality can impact and change persisting social morality. For instance, legislation abolishing the practice of Sati granted widows the right to dignity and life, influencing societal perceptions of the practice.
  • Constitutional morality recognizes and celebrates plurality and diversity in society, making individuals and communities more inclusive through constant improvement and reforms. Notably, in the Navtej Singh Johar case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rights of LGBTQ individuals and gender non-conforming people to their dignity, life, liberty, and identity.

Concerns:

  • Despite its significance, constitutional morality has not been clearly defined by the Supreme Court, leaving room for subjective interpretation by individual judges. This lack of clarity can lead to varying interpretations and potential inconsistencies in its application.
  • Some critics argue that the top-down approach to morality, as prescribed by constitutional morality, hinders the organic emergence of solutions to ethical problems in society.
  • Additionally, there are concerns that the application of constitutional morality may violate the principle of separation of powers, as it establishes judicial supremacy over parliamentary supremacy.
  • Critics argue that this goes against the fundamental principles of democratic governance.
  • Some also claim that the doctrine of constitutional morality can lead to judicial overreach, pitting it against societal or popular morality.

Need to Uphold Constitutional Morality:

  • To uphold constitutional morality, it is crucial to emphasize the central elements of freedom and self-restraint. Self-restraint is considered a precondition for maintaining freedom under a proper constitutional government.
  • The constitutional methods outlined in the Constitution must be utilized to achieve social and economic objectives, ensuring that governance aligns with constitutional ideals.
  • Creating awareness among the general public about their rights protected by the Constitution is essential to promote constitutional morality. This can be done through educational initiatives and outreach programs.
  • Upholding constitutional morality also involves individuals following their Fundamental Duties while exercising their Fundamental Rights, recognizing the reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities.

Constitutional morality is a sentiment that needs to be cultivated in the minds of responsible citizens. Upholding constitutional morality is not solely the duty of the judiciary or the state, but also the responsibility of every individual. The preamble of the constitution explicitly reflects the desired society that can be realized through constitutional morality. The judiciary's progressive and monumental precedents, which have applied this doctrine, have played a crucial role in cases related to gender justice, institutional propriety, social upliftment, and countering majoritarianism. The cultivation of constitutional morality is vital for the principles of governance and accountability to thrive in society.

Background of the Case:

  • The petitioners, a Muslim man and a Hindu woman in their 30s approached the court seeking protection from police harassment while residing together in a rented house.
  • They alleged that the local police had been subjecting them to torture based on a complaint filed by a family member. Their case was based on their mutual love and affection for each other.

Unacceptable in the Constitutional Sense:

  • The High Court's judgment is constitutionally unacceptable for several reasons.
  • Firstly, it is influenced by conventional social morality rather than the constitutional principles of individual autonomy and personal liberty.
  • Secondly, the court should have considered several Supreme Court judgments despite citing them, providing untenable reasons.
  • Thirdly, the High Court went beyond its jurisdiction by relying on personal laws on marriage that were irrelevant to the case.

Disregard for Supreme Court Precedents:

  • The Allahabad judgment rejected the precedential value of Supreme Court verdicts on live-in relationships, such as D. Velusamy (2010), Indra Sarma (2013), and Dhanu Lal (2015).
  • The High Court implied that these judgments were not intended to promote such relationships, stating that the law traditionally favors marriage. This rejection of Supreme Court precedents undermines the authority of the top court.

Inclination towards Orthodoxy:

  • Despite the deficiencies in the petition, the High Court should not have assumed that marriage is a prerequisite for constitutional protection and the exercise of fundamental rights.
  • By acting as a theological court, the verdict displayed a clear inclination towards social orthodoxy and religious revivalism. The court's decision seems to reiterate traditional beliefs on marriage and morals rather than upholding individual liberty and autonomy.

Supreme Court Verdicts on Fundamental Rights:

  • Supreme Court judgments on fundamental rights are not merely resolutions of inter-party disputes. They are binding on all courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution.
  • The top court's role in constitutional adjudication is not to encourage or discourage social practices or human conduct.

Examples of Upholding Personal Liberty:

  • Supreme Court judgments like Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018), which decriminalized adultery, and Navtej Singh Johar (2018), which struck down Section 377 of the IPC dealing with same-sex relations, emphasize personal liberty and limit the state's power in personal choices. These verdicts made constitutional adjudications rather than moral judgments.

High Court's Disregard for Established Law:

  • The Allahabad High Court, while citing Supreme Court judgments, contended that these were applicable only to the specific facts of the respective cases. However, this does not justify the High Court's disregard for the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court on matters of fundamental rights.

Conclusion:

The Allahabad High Court's judgment in the Kiran Rawat vs State of UP case not only undermines the concept of constitutional morality in personal relations but also exhibits judicial indiscipline. It is hoped that the Supreme Court will rectify this adjudicatory mishap at the earliest. The judgment's implication that personal laws' moral teachings supersede constitutional principles is a grave concern and requires urgent correction.

Probable Questions for UPSC mains Exam-

  1. How does the recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court in the Kiran Rawat vs State of UP case impact constitutional morality and personal liberty, and what is its contradiction with Supreme Court precedents on fundamental rights in personal relations? (10 Marks,150 Words)
  2. Why is the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the Kiran Rawat vs State of UP case constitutionally unacceptable? Discuss its disregard for Supreme Court precedents, inclination towards social orthodoxy, and implications for individual autonomy and personal liberty. (15 marks,250 Words)

Source: The Hindu