Introduction

Justice in India has always been a blend of tradition, morality, and constitutional values. While the image of Lady Justice, a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword, is a universal symbol of impartiality and fairness, the Indian judiciary has its own distinct identity. Unlike in the West, where justice is seen as an entirely rational and legalistic process, Indian jurisprudence has always considered ethical, religious, and societal morals as guiding principles.

But how relevant are these traditional moral values in today’s constitutional framework? Should judicial decisions be based on societal morality, or should they strictly adhere to constitutional principles? This article explores the evolution of the Indian judiciary, analyzing how tradition, morality, and constitutional values shape its decisions.

The Traditional Notion of Justice in India

Justice in India has deep historical and philosophical roots. The idea of justice was historically guided by Dharma, a concept that encompassed moral duties, righteousness, and cosmic order. Ancient Indian texts such as the Manusmriti, Arthashastra, and Yajnavalkya Smriti served as legal and moral codes, establishing a strong link between law and ethical conduct.

• Dharma as Law: Unlike modern legal systems, ancient Indian justice did not differentiate between morality and legality. A just ruler was expected to rule with wisdom and moral uprightness, and justice was seen as a divine duty.

• Customary Laws: Local customs and traditions heavily influenced the legal system. Even today, remnants of this can be seen in India’s personal laws, which govern marriage, inheritance, and religious practices.

• Panchayati System: The village-level justice system focused on reconciliation rather than punishment, emphasizing communal harmony over strict legal codes.

While these traditional systems ensured a form of moral justice, they often lacked uniformity and fairness, especially concerning caste and gender rights. This changed with the advent of colonial rule.

Colonial Influence and the Evolution of Indian Judiciary

The British legal system introduced a codified structure to Indian law, replacing the diverse customary laws with a uniform legal framework. However, this transition was not smooth:

• Codification of Laws: The British imposed a strict legal structure through laws like the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Indian Evidence Act. This move sidelined traditional justice systems.

• Conflict Between Morality and Law: The British legal system was based on Western principles, which often clashed with Indian traditions. For instance, laws related to Sati, child marriage, and widow remarriage challenged deeply ingrained societal norms.

• Judiciary as an Independent Institution: Unlike traditional justice, where moral and religious leaders played a key role, the British system emphasized judicial independence, which later became a foundation of Indian democracy.

Even after independence, the Indian judiciary retained much of the British legal structure but incorporated constitutional morality as its guiding principle.

The Lady of Justice in Indian Legal Symbolism

The universal Lady Justice is depicted as blindfolded, symbolizing impartiality. However, in India, justice is not always "blind." Judicial decisions often take into account social, moral, and ethical considerations.

• Should Indian Justice Be Blindfolded? Some argue that removing the blindfold symbolizes justice considering India’s socio-cultural complexities. Others believe that true justice must remain objective, without influence from tradition or morality.

• The Balance Between Morality and Law: Indian courts frequently engage in moral reasoning, whether in cases related to LGBTQ+ rights, religious freedoms, or gender equality.

This leads us to the role of morality in judicial decisions.

Morality in Indian Judicial Decisions

Morality plays a significant role in the interpretation of Indian law, but whose morality should the judiciary uphold?

• Religious vs. Constitutional Morality: The judiciary often faces conflicts between religious beliefs and constitutional principles. For example, the Sabarimala judgment (2018) upheld constitutional morality over religious customs, allowing women of menstruating age to enter the temple.

• Evolving Moral Standards: The decriminalization of homosexuality (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018) demonstrated a shift from conservative morality to progressive constitutional values.

• Triple Talaq Ban: The Supreme Court ruled against instant triple talaq, citing gender justice as a constitutional principle rather than a religious one.

The balance between morality and constitutionalism is delicate, requiring careful judicial scrutiny.

Constitutional Values and Their Role in Indian Judiciary

The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land, ensuring justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all citizens. The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding these constitutional values, often balancing them against traditional morality.

The Preamble as a Guide

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution reflects the fundamental values that the judiciary must uphold:

• Justice – Social, Economic, and Political: Courts ensure that laws do not discriminate and promote inclusivity.

• Liberty of Thought, Expression, Belief, Faith, and Worship: Judicial decisions safeguard individual freedoms against oppressive traditions.

• Equality of Status and Opportunity: Courts intervene in cases of gender and caste discrimination.

• Fraternity Assuring Dignity of the Individual: The judiciary protects human dignity by striking down regressive social practices.

Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

The judiciary often finds itself balancing Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs):

• FRs (Part III of the Constitution) are enforceable rights, including the right to equality, freedom of speech, and religious freedom.

• DPSPs (Part IV of the Constitution) are guidelines for the state to ensure social justice, including policies on livelihood, health, and education.

While fundamental rights take precedence, courts sometimes invoke DPSPs to shape judicial activism and progressive rulings.

The Shift from Traditional to Progressive Jurisprudence

Over the years, the Indian judiciary has shifted from traditional interpretations of law to a more progressive and constitutional approach.

Role of the Supreme Court in Transforming Indian Legal Thought

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s core values.

• Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) beyond physical survival, incorporating dignity, freedom, and privacy.

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality, emphasizing constitutional morality over societal norms.

Respecting Tradition While Upholding Constitutional Values

• In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court ruled Triple Talaq unconstitutional, prioritizing gender justice over religious customs.

• In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the court ruled in favor of women’s entry into Sabarimala Temple, challenging gender-discriminatory traditions.

These rulings reflect a judiciary that respects tradition but does not let it override constitutional rights.

The Debate: Should Morality Influence Legal Decisions?

The question of whether morality should play a role in legal decisions remains controversial.

Arguments in Favor of Judicial Morality

1. Ensures Justice Beyond Legal Technicalities: Laws may not always address ethical concerns, making moral considerations necessary.

1. Upholds Constitutional Morality Over Societal Norms: Courts must protect individual rights even when society resists change.

1. Reflects an Evolving Society: Morality is not static; as societies progress, so should their legal interpretations.

Arguments Against Excessive Moral Considerations

1. Law Should Be Objective: Personal moral views of judges should not dictate rulings.

1. Leads to Judicial Overreach: Courts may interfere excessively in legislative matters.

1. Creates Uncertainty: Subjective moral reasoning can lead to inconsistent judgments.

Finding a Balanced Approach

While morality plays a role in legal decisions, the judiciary must ensure that constitutional principles remain the primary guiding force.

Judicial Activism and the Role of Judges in Shaping Society

Judicial activism refers to proactive court interventions to ensure justice, especially when the legislature or executive fails to act.

Notable Cases of Judicial Activism

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces.

• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Strengthened environmental protection laws.

• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): Disqualified convicted legislators from contesting elections.

Controversy: When Does Judicial Activism Become Overreach?

• Striking Down NJAC (2015): The Supreme Court rejected the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), reinforcing judicial independence but sparking debates on transparency.

• Farm Laws Case (2021): The court stayed the implementation of farm laws, an action many viewed as interfering in legislative matters.

While judicial activism ensures justice and accountability, excessive intervention may undermine democracy.

The Role of Women in Indian Judiciary: A New Perspective on Lady Justice

Breaking Stereotypes: Women-Led Landmark Judgments

• Justice Indu Malhotra was the sole dissenting judge in the Sabarimala case, arguing for religious autonomy.

• Justice BV Nagarathna is set to become India’s first female Chief Justice, symbolizing progress in gender representation.

Gender Diversity and Its Impact on Judicial Decisions

• Increased female representation ensures a more inclusive perspective in legal interpretations.

• Women judges often emphasize issues like gender justice, workplace rights, and domestic violence.

Although the Indian judiciary is male dominated, rising female leadership signifies a new era of fairness and representation.

Challenges in Upholding Constitutional Morality

Despite progressive judgments, the judiciary faces several challenges in upholding constitutional morality:

1. Social Resistance to Progressive Rulings – Court decisions on issues like LGBTQ+ rights and temple entry face strong public opposition.

1. Clash Between Legislative Intent and Judicial Interpretation – Laws passed by Parliament often conflict with judicial rulings.

1. Political and Media Pressure – The judiciary must remain independent despite external influences.

To ensure true justice, courts must navigate these challenges while staying committed to the spirit of the Constitution.

Public Perception of Justice in India

How do people perceive judicial decisions?

Factors Shaping Public Trust in Judiciary

1. Fairness and Impartiality – People expect courts to deliver unbiased rulings.

1. Speed of Justice – Delayed cases reduce public confidence.

1. Media Influence – Sensationalized reporting can distort public understanding of legal judgments.

Building public trust requires transparency, efficiency, and strong judicial ethics.

Future of Indian Judiciary: The Road Ahead

Key Areas for Growth and Reform

1. Strengthening Judicial Infrastructure – Addressing case backlog through better technology and court efficiency.

1. Promoting Gender and Social Diversity – Ensuring more representation from marginalized communities.

1. Enhancing Legal Awareness – Educating citizens about their rights and constitutional values.

A balanced approach that respects tradition while upholding constitutional principles will shape the future of Indian justice.

Conclusion

Justice in India is no longer just about tradition or morality—it is about striking a balance between historical values, ethical considerations, and constitutional principles.

• While traditional justice systems focused on moral and religious values, modern courts prioritize constitutional morality.

• Progressive judicial decisions have challenged regressive traditions, making justice more inclusive.

• The future of Indian judiciary depends on fairness, inclusivity, and a commitment to constitutional values.

The New Lady of Justice in India represents not just blindfolded impartiality but an evolving legal system that embraces tradition while upholding the rights of all citizens.

FAQs

1. What is constitutional morality in the Indian judiciary?

Constitutional morality refers to principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution that guide judicial decisions, even if they go against societal norms.

2. How does the judiciary balance tradition and modern constitutional values?

Courts weigh traditional customs against constitutional rights, ensuring that laws do not discriminate against any section of society.

3. Why is judicial activism important in India?

Judicial activism helps bridge gaps when the legislature or executive fails to act on issues like human rights and social justice.

4. What role do women play in Indian judiciary?

Women judges bring diverse perspectives, contributing to gender justice and a more inclusive legal system.

5. How can the Indian judiciary maintain public trust?

By ensuring impartiality, reducing delays, and increasing transparency, the judiciary can strengthen public confidence in the legal system.