Constitutional Morality in India: An Ambedkarite Essay on Its Concept and Violations Since Independence

 

Constitutional Morality in India: An Ambedkarite Essay on Its Concept and Violations Since Independence

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

The idea of constitutional morality occupies a central place in the democratic vision of B. R. Ambedkar, who regarded it as indispensable for the successful functioning of a constitutional democracy in India. For Ambedkar, the Constitution was not merely a legal document but a moral and political framework that required a corresponding ethical culture among both rulers and citizens. Constitutional morality, therefore, goes beyond formal adherence to laws; it demands a deep respect for democratic values, institutional integrity, and the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable. However, the trajectory of post-independence India reveals a persistent gap between constitutional ideals and political practice, raising important questions about the viability of constitutional morality in a deeply hierarchical society.

Ambedkar borrowed the term “constitutional morality” from George Grote, who used it to describe adherence to constitutional forms and procedures in ancient Greek democracies (Grote 1862). Yet Ambedkar significantly expanded the concept to suit the Indian context. For him, constitutional morality was not limited to procedural fidelity but encompassed a broader commitment to justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity. It required those in power to exercise restraint, respect institutional boundaries, and act in accordance with the spirit rather than merely the letter of the Constitution. Ambedkar emphasized that such morality is not innate but must be cultivated through education and practice, warning that without it, even the best-designed Constitution could fail (Ambedkar 1948).

At the core of Ambedkar’s conception lies the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. In a society historically governed by religious texts and caste norms, this principle was revolutionary. It implied that all social practices, however deeply entrenched, must yield to constitutional values. This was closely linked to his insistence on institutional integrity. Ambedkar envisioned a system of checks and balances in which the legislature, executive, and judiciary would function within clearly defined limits. Any encroachment by one organ upon another would undermine the constitutional order and lead to arbitrariness (Austin 1966).

Equally significant was Ambedkar’s concern with minority rights and the dangers of majoritarianism. In a caste-based society, numerical majority could easily translate into social domination. Constitutional morality, therefore, required robust safeguards to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. This concern was rooted in his broader commitment to the rule of law, which demands equality before law and the absence of arbitrary power (Dicey 1959). However, Ambedkar went beyond liberal constitutionalism by emphasizing fraternity as a necessary moral foundation. Without a sense of social solidarity, he argued, liberty and equality would remain fragile and superficial. The persistence of caste hierarchy, which denies basic human dignity to large sections of society, posed a fundamental challenge to the realization of constitutional morality (Omvedt 1994).

Ambedkar’s warning to the Constituent Assembly on the eve of the Constitution’s adoption remains one of the most prescient critiques of Indian democracy. He cautioned that political democracy could not endure without social democracy and described Indian society as “essentially undemocratic.” He also warned against hero-worship in politics, which he believed could lead to dictatorship (Ambedkar 1949). These concerns have proved remarkably relevant in the decades since independence, as India has witnessed repeated violations of constitutional morality.

One of the most striking examples was the period of Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in India. During this time, fundamental rights were suspended, political opposition was suppressed, and press freedom was severely curtailed. Although these actions were carried out within a formal legal framework, they represented a profound violation of constitutional morality, demonstrating how constitutional provisions can be manipulated to undermine democratic principles (Austin 1999). The Emergency highlighted the fragility of democratic institutions and the dangers of concentrating power in the executive. Even the present Modi rule is said to be an undeclared emergency.

Another significant area of concern has been the misuse of Article 356, which allows for the dismissal of state governments. While constitutionally sanctioned, its frequent use for political purposes undermined federalism and violated the spirit of the Constitution (Arora 1995). Similarly, the rise of majoritarian politics has posed a serious challenge to constitutional morality. The increasing influence of religious nationalism in public life has affected minority rights and weakened the principle of secularism. From an Ambedkarite perspective, such developments represent a fundamental departure from the egalitarian vision of the Constitution and reinforce existing social hierarchies (Jaffrelot 2003).

The persistence of caste inequality further underscores the limitations of constitutional morality in practice. Despite constitutional guarantees, caste-based discrimination and violence continue to affect Dalits and other marginalized communities. This reflects a deep contradiction between political democracy and social reality. As scholars have argued, the Constitution operates within a society that often resists its transformative goals (Guru 2009). Ambedkar himself recognized this tension and insisted that social reform was essential for the success of political democracy.

Institutional erosion has also contributed to the weakening of constitutional morality. Concerns about judicial independence, the declining quality of legislative deliberation, and the politicization of executive agencies have raised questions about the functioning of democratic institutions. These developments undermine the system of checks and balances that is central to constitutional governance (Mehta 2003). Electoral distortions, including the influence of money and the criminalization of politics, further weaken democratic accountability (Chhibber and Nooruddin 2004).

The curtailment of civil liberties represents another area where constitutional morality has been compromised. Restrictions on dissent, including the use of sedition and anti-terror laws, have raised concerns about the protection of fundamental rights. Ambedkar viewed dissent as an essential component of democracy, and its suppression contradicts the spirit of constitutional morality (Baxi 1982).

Despite these challenges, there have been instances where constitutional morality has been upheld, particularly through judicial intervention. The Supreme Court of India has invoked the concept in several landmark judgments, emphasizing the primacy of constitutional values over social norms. These decisions reflect an ongoing struggle to realize Ambedkar’s vision in a complex and evolving society.

From an Ambedkarite perspective, the persistent violations of constitutional morality are not merely the result of individual failures but are rooted in structural conditions. The continued dominance of caste hierarchy, the absence of social and economic democracy, and the concentration of power in elite groups all contribute to the erosion of constitutional values. Moreover, the lack of widespread constitutional awareness among citizens limits the capacity for democratic accountability.

The restoration of constitutional morality, therefore, requires more than institutional reform. It demands a fundamental transformation of society. Ambedkar’s call for the annihilation of caste remains central to this project. Without addressing the structural inequalities that shape social relations, constitutional values cannot be fully realized. At the same time, efforts to promote constitutional education and civic awareness are essential for cultivating a democratic culture. Strengthening institutions, protecting dissent, and promoting ethical political leadership are equally important.

In conclusion, constitutional morality remains one of Ambedkar’s most profound contributions to democratic thought. It highlights the ethical foundations of constitutional governance and underscores the importance of social transformation for the success of democracy. The experience of independent India reveals a persistent gap between constitutional ideals and social realities, reflecting the challenges of implementing a transformative Constitution in a deeply hierarchical society. Ambedkar’s warning about the fragility of democracy continues to resonate, reminding us that the survival of constitutional governance depends not only on legal structures but on the moral commitment of society.

---

References

Ambedkar, B. R. 1948. Constituent Assembly Debates.
Ambedkar, B. R. 1949. Speech to the Constituent Assembly, November 25.
Arora, Balveer. 1995. “Adapting Federalism to India.” Publius 25(2): 29–47.
Austin, Granville. 1966. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press.
Austin, Granville. 1999. Working a Democratic Constitution. Oxford University Press.
Baxi, Upendra. 1982. The Crisis of the Indian Legal System. Delhi: Vikas.
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Irfan Nooruddin. 2004. “Do Party Systems Count?” Comparative Political Studies 37(2): 152–187.
Dicey, A. V. 1959. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Macmillan.
Grote, George. 1862. A History of Greece. London: John Murray.
Guru, Gopal. 2009. Humiliation: Claims and Context. Oxford University Press.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2003. India’s Silent Revolution. Columbia University Press.
Mehta, Pratap Bhanu. 2003. The Burden of Democracy. Penguin.
Omvedt, Gail. 1994. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution. Sage Publications.