The Indian Constitution serves as both, a legal and a political document to the
country. It has taken quite a while for the people of the nation to be open to
the laws and the protective measures that have been provided to them through the
law of land.
Since, we have a federal structure of the country; both the central
and the state government are independent in their own spheres. This invites for
the nation, a complex structure and mechanism for its functioning; aimlessly
leading to some persistent issues in the country.
There are certain matters of
legal as well as political intricacies that need to be looked upon once again as
the nation strives to reach the pinnacle of success in adopting the law of this
land in its complete sense. There are issues which demand the authority to delve
into depths of reforms, proper allocation of resources and creation of a new
realm of laws for the Indian citizens.
Constitutional Morality As A Challenge
The doctrine of constitutional morality is a relatively recent addition to this
list. Constitutional morality has meant different things at different points in
time. But today, it essentially means two things: firstly, the opposite of
popular morality, and secondly, the spirit or essence of the Constitution.
The basic structure doctrine enables constitutional courts to examine the
validity of constitutional amendments by examining whether they violate the basic
of the Constitution. Likewise, constitutional morality, allows
constitutional courts to examine the validity of all government actions, not
merely constitutional amendments, by looking at the spirit of the
There are several recent developments that have been made
under the name of constitutional morality
that try, wholly or partially, to
bring India to block of backwardness in many fields. The courts these days have
announced many verdicts that have left the social entities of India into a
process of deep thinking about the future of the nation. The judgements in the
name of morality are many a times these days highly unexpected and unwelcoming
for the citizens.
The abrogation of Article 370 that came through a resolution
of parliament, without taking any consent of the state government of Jammu and
Kashmir was another example of the constitutionally immoral decisions. The
democratic government of India is an integral part of the law and hence it is
bound to take decisions that are both the legally and politically acceptable.
The government must have taken the people of state into confidence before
indulging itself into taking such a strong decision. The central government's
stand on the Sabrimala Case  was so minimal that it could not provide any
support to the state government of Kerala in overriding the judgement that the
state unit was demanding; just to keep its vote bank satisfied and happy.
Data Protection Bill And Right To Privacy
One of the major challenges while dealing with the issue is the Right to
is one of the most difficult concepts to define and can not
be understood as a static and one-dimensional concept. It can only be construed
as a group of rights. It is clear from the facts that in every 79 seconds an
identity is being stolen, acknowledging the fact that privacy concern is the
wildest increasing crime of these days.
The right has recently been read into
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court but it has become a
burning issue regarding to the concerns raised against the government's
initiatives to collect personal data from citizens. Not only the right to
privacy but the Data Protection Bill is itself at stake. The definition of
social media intermediary
provided in clause 26 of the bill itself reads it to
be vague. Moreover, the power of the intermediaries
to verify their users
themselves can prove to be a big challenge to the government in the long run.
This might overlap the powers of the government to regulate intermediaries
under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.  Clause 35 of the
same bill provides wide power to the government to exempt any agency or
department from partial or complete application of data protection law. This
exception gives to the government use of data for surveillance, which hails
against the decision laid out in the Puttaswamy Judgement that declared Right to
Privacy as a fundamental right to the citizens. 
The Act formed by passing
such a bill is apparently an attempt to create a complex legal framework for
data protection. Hacking of personal social media accounts of the celebrities as
well as the common people these days is a quite common deal. We often get to
hear news stating the leak of information from various users' account. The terms
and conditions of almost all the web pages include the permission for these
pages to intrigue into the user history to know the interests of the user.
Hence, privacy is one of the major contemporary concerns of the constitutional
law; giving it a tough target of dealing with this issue.
Constitutional Supremacy Or Parliamentary Sovereignty
When we look into the practical scenario, the answer is a echoing sound of
. Article 49(1) of the Indian Constitution not only
declares itself to be the supreme law of the land but also limits the power of
parliament to pass laws. 
When it comes to protecting the natural rights of
citizens, the constitution has always proved to be a boon. The Constitution of
India divides its power into three bodies that are both independent and
dependent on each other. This sharing of power inculcates the value of
responsibility and maintains a check on each of these entities.
The three organs
of the constitution are named-the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
The legislature is what we call the parliament. However, these powers never
prove that the parliamentary sovereignty is any less powerful.
It holds the
authority to amend the laws of the Constitution in the light of Article 159 of
the Indian Constitution. All the liberties of the citizens can be lifted up by
the Parliament if required for national safety and integrity.
parliamentary powers have proved themselves to be undemocratic sometimes. When
the former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, was declared guilty of corrupt
practices and the election was considered null and void, she declared an
emergency in the state in flagrant contempt of the court.  It eventually
turns out that there is a certain basic structure of the Indian Constitution
that can not be amended or abrogated by the legislature; making it quite
The separation of power is given its true meaning only in
constitutional supremacy where the judiciary wholly attempts to uphold the laws
laid down in the constitution and also keeps a check that the new laws passed by
the parliament abide by the basic structure of the Constitution and do not
violate any of its Articles.
Also, constitutional supremacy is a major foreseen
factor in the betterment of the country. The makers of our constitution, through
the constitutional supremacy, authorised the common people of the country to
live freely with a sense of honour and dignity.
Patriarchy And Permanent Commission In Army
A permanent commission in army means to serve until one retires. This was one of
the major concerns related not only to career but also equality. The
Constitution of India does not mention any inequality on the basis of gender.
This issue dealt with women who were not given a choice to opt for permanent
commission i.e. to continue the service in army after 10 years of joining. The
recruitment of women staff in army began in 1992 through Women Special Entry
However, they were kept out of any command appointment and could
not qualify for government pension, which one can avail only after 20 years of
service as an officer. A PIL concerning the same was filed in the year 2003 in
Delhi HC.  There were many decisions from the court while the case was
finally decided in the Supreme Court in the year 2020; which included granting
permanent commission to women in Judge Advocate General (JAG) and Army Education
Despite the deficiency of officers in support services, trained
women were not granted permanent commission with a feeble argument that women
are physically weak and are more prone to be caught by the enemies. All the
arguments against granting them permanent commission were nothing more than a
sex stereotype and a challenge to the Right to Equality mentioned in Article
14 of the Constitution. 
There have been women like Sarojini Naidu and Rani Laxmi Bai who fought no less
than men of their contemporary times. There have been women who proved that
females too can be physically strong and mentally forward. There have been women
who made the country proud by landing in space and set a bar of honour for
themselves. And still if such problems of being
inferior to men
are faced by the women of a country after 72 long years of
independence, then it definitely leads to a major set back not only to the
constitutional law but also to the development of mindset of people.
We still have to strive for a long time until these issues are completely dealt
with. We still have to wait for the mindsets to be changed, for the long culture
of nepotism in politics to come to an end, for the meaning and purpose of the
Constitution to be acknowledged, for the women to be given the same pedestal as
men and for the country to be fully developed with all its laws implemented.
- Chandrachud, Abhinav, The Many Meanings of Constitutional Morality, January
- Dr. Shah Faesal and Ors. V. Union of India and Ars., (2019) Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 1099 of 2019
- Indian Young Lawyer Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) SCC Online SC 1690
- Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2012) Writ Petition (Civil) No.
494 of 2012
- Constitution Of India, 1950, Art. 49, Cl. 1
- Jahaberdeen M. Yunoos, Constitutional Supremacy Or Parliamentary
Supremacy?, The STAR
- Babita Puniya and Ors. V. Union of India, (2003), Writ Petition No. 1597 of
- Constitution Of India, 1950, Art. 14