Constitutional morality must trump majoritarian bias, says SC judge Ujjal Bhuyan

Flagging persistent social prejudice against Muslims and Dalits, Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan cautioned that “popular morality” — even when backed by a majority — cannot override the Constitution’s guarantees of dignity and equality.

Speaking at a seminar organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad recently, Justice Bhuyan underlined that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian impulses, which often run contrary to the foundational values of the Republic.

“Personal or popular morality may reflect the views of a majority,” he said, “but it frequently conflicts with the standards expected by the Constitution.”

‘Deep societal faultlines’

To illustrate what he described as “deep societal faultlines” that continue 75 years after Independence, Justice Bhuyan cited two recent and unrelated incidents.

In one, a PhD scholar in Delhi was allegedly denied accommodation after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. The student, he recounted, had approached a landlady running a working women’s hostel in South Delhi. Initially told that rooms were available, she was turned away after disclosing her full name, which indicated she was Muslim. She was bluntly told to “search for some other place”.

In another instance from Odisha, parents reportedly objected to their children consuming food prepared by a Dalit woman under the mid-day meal scheme.

Such episodes, Justice Bhuyan said, were merely the “tip of the iceberg”, reflecting entrenched discrimination that survives beneath the surface of formal equality.

Naz Foundation and the rejection of ‘public morality’

Recalling the landmark 2009 ruling in Naz Foundation v Union of India, where the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, Justice Bhuyan said the judgment firmly rejected the argument that public disapproval could justify curtailing fundamental rights.

In that case, the Union government had argued that “popular morality” constituted a legitimate state interest and could be enforced through law. The High Court disagreed, holding that public morality or societal disapproval was not a valid ground to restrict the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The ruling, Justice Bhuyan noted, explicitly limited the State’s ability to privilege public morality over constitutional morality — a principle that remains central to judicial review.

Restraint, not rule by numbers

Constitutional morality, he said, requires democratic institutions to act with restraint and fidelity to constitutional values rather than “bulldoze through on the strength of numbers, authority and power”.

Addressing district court judges, Justice Bhuyan invoked Thurgood Marshall, the former US Supreme Court Justice, to underscore the moral authority of the judiciary. A judge’s “only real source of power”, he quoted Marshall as saying, lies in the respect of the people — respect earned through independence and unwavering commitment to the Constitution.

In a climate where social divisions often surface in everyday life, Justice Bhuyan’s message was clear: courts must stand as the last line of defense, ensuring that constitutional guarantees are not diluted by prejudice, however widespread.