There is a need to discuss “Constitutional Criminality & Democratic Morality.” The Indian Constitution has rejected and disagreed with both the Left and Right groups. Unfortunately, the Governance is destroying the morality of the Constitutional left, right, and center. The theme of this lecture is based on three concepts.
- Constitutional Integrity
- Constitutional Morality
- Constitutional Criminality
- Constitutional Civil wrongs
- Constitutional Propriety
- Constitutional Democracy
‘Morals, Ethics, and not lying or avoiding the falsehood’ arise from our National Motto, Satyam Eva Jayathe. Only ‘truth’ wins, nothing else. Even if a serious violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India, it does not have the power to punish the violators. They may be shocked to hear this. The entire Constitution is a code of morality. We need to understand this. There is no penal code or penal Constitution. Every day, we are violating this morality. Break Oath, destroy the ethics, it’s a common day activity.
In a family somewhere some sometimes, one should remember, understand, and tell the reality or truth, at least to mother, father, brother, and wife. I was surprised to know that somebody had to file a petition under the Right to Information Act to tell the truth! Will that ‘public information officer’ tell the truth? Is it a morality code or a penal law that imposes a penalty, at least for not giving information? Whether the wife is entitled to know the monthly salary of the husband was before me as Central Information Commissioner, such a simple ‘truth’, if she wants it known. Morality and Satyam Eva Jayate, the Constitutional Motto,
and part of Constitutional Morality.
Not the letter, but the spirit
In fact, there is nothing like ‘Constitutional Morality’, but one can understand that it is the core philosophy and ethical code embedded within the Indian Constitution. It means adhering not merely to the letter of the law, but to its spirit and fundamental values (like equality, liberty, and fraternity). It is an essential check on majoritarianism and arbitrary power, often championed by the Supreme Court.
National Law Day: The Constitution was adopted by the Indian Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949 and came into effect on 26 January 1950. 26 January was chosen as the date for Republic Day as it was in 1930 when the Indian National Congress proclaimed the Declaration of Indian Independence. On this day, the citizenship, Elections, and Provisional Parliament are functional on this day. Protecting the basic democracy is constitutional morality. It is the basic structure of our Constitution. When the Constituent Assembly finalised our Constitution on 26 November 1949, it did not ome across the concept of ‘basic structure’. If Ambedkar were living and available, he would have surely incorporated as an important part of our Constitution, wherever possible, at least in the Preamble. Ambedkar should have used the concept of the PIL, which has totally changed the structure of functioning of the Supreme Court and our governance and democracy. It is a conscience of the Constitution of India. The Constitutional morality is expected to prevent tyranny. It acts as a higher standard to prevent the elected majority from using its power to violate fundamental rights or principles.
The Dominant Majority can protect itself. But what about the minority? That morality ensures that the rights and interests of minority groups are upheld, even if unpopular with the majority. The Constitution is expected to be dynamic, not just a legislative statement with some power, as passed by a majority of MPs. This dynamic evolution allows the Constitution to adapt to changing societal needs and values over time without requiring frequent formal amendments. Simultaneously, it has its own issues, primarily ‘constitutional morality’, an ambiguous concept allowing judges to impose their personal values or political ideology in the name of “morality.” We need to protect the basic structure of our constitutional democracy from personal values and political ideology. The challenge before now is that the 130 th Amendment was made in a hurry.
Even SC Judgment a ‘code’?
The Supreme Court’s November 20, 2025, judgment, an advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference, stated that the judiciary cannot impose fixed timelines on the President and Governors for processing state bills. Is it a moral guide or a binding precedent? The decision clarified that while prolonged inaction is unconstitutional and subject to limited judicial review, the specific timeframes previously suggested by the court were an overreach of judicial power.
- The absence of a strict, enforceable timeline may allow Governors to sit on bills for
extended, potentially unreasonable, periods, thereby stalling governance and
thwarting the will of elected state legislatures. - Weakens Federalism: Critics argue that the decision empowers the central
government-appointed Governors to undermine the rights and legislative agenda of
non-BJP-ruled states, which can strain Centre-state relations.
The judiciary encroaching: Critics argue that excessive reliance on constitutional morality can lead to the
judiciary encroaching upon the legislative or executive domains. One can find many examples under the head of Governance and Parliamentary democracy. Again, the 130 th Amendment can be quoted as an example.
It may lead to friction between the judiciary and the legislature/executive when constitutional-morality-based rulings invalidate popular legislation.
Constitutional Integrity & Propriety
In functional democracy, the people need Constitutional Integrity, which refers to the state of the Constitution being whole, sound, and unimpaired. It is about maintaining the basic structure, coherence, and fidelity to its foundational principles.
Upholds Rule of Law: Constitutional Integrity should ensure the stability of the legal framework and guarantee that governance is predictable and fair. However, the Constitutional Propriety refers to the ethical and appropriate behavior of all constitutional functionaries (President, Governor, Speaker, MPs, MLAs, Judges, etc.) in accordance with the established norms and conventions of the Constitution.
Promotes Trust: Constitutional Propriety, especially, builds public faith in democratic institutions by ensuring office holders act responsibly and impartially. One should avoid the Rigidity: Strict adherence to integrity can sometimes hinder necessary constitutional evolution or reform needed to address new challenges, and Vagueness in Practice, the propriety can be difficult to enforce legally, as it often involves unwritten conventions and political ethics rather than explicit laws.
Constitutional Criminality & Civil Wrongs
These concepts, particularly Constitutional Criminality, are not formal legal terms but are used in political/academic discourse (like “Constitutional Criminality & Democratic Morality”) to describe deep-seated failures of the constitutional system.
Criminality: The willful, systematic, or widespread violation of constitutional duties, fundamental rights, or the basic structure by those in power, often for political gain.
Example: Mass defections, deliberate institutional sabotage (as suggested in your article).
Identifies Systemic Failure: Helps expose and name the gravest threats to democracy that go beyond simple legal violations (e.g., crimes against the Constitution). The problem is the Risk of Politicization: it could be weaponized by political opponents, diluting its genuine meaning and turning it into a mere political slogan. However, the Constitutional Civil Wrongs are different. Actions by the State or its functionaries that cause injury to citizens by violating their constitutional rights, leading to claims for compensation (e.g., police brutality, illegal detention).
Provides Legal Recourse: Directly empowers the judiciary to protect citizens and compensate them for State-inflicted injury under public law remedies.
Slow Litigation: Like all civil remedies, enforcement can be delayed due to the slow nature of the legal process. Like working the remedy of anti-defection, which was part of the Constitution after the amendment, that turned into a ‘penal’ code to some extent. We are convenient to the common delay and pendency. By the time the five-year term time passed, the anti-defection penal rule did not work.
(First of 3-part article based on the “Constitutional Day Lecture’ on “the Constitutional Criminality & Democratic Morality” by this author, at BRAOU – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Hyderabad.)
Law professor and eminent columnist
Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, author of 63 books (in Telugu and English), Formerly Central Information Commissioner, Professor of NALSAR University, Bennett University (near Delhi), presently Professor and Advisor, Mahindra University, Hyderabad. Studied in Masoom Ali High School, AVV Junior College, CKM College, and Kakatiya University in Warangal. Madabhushi did LL.M., MCJ., and the highest law degree, LL.D. He won 4 Gold Medals at Kakatiya University and Osmania University.
