This tension often reaches the judiciary, which is tasked with balancing rights: the right of communities to preserve traditions, and the right of individuals to enjoy equality and liberty.

Landmark Judicial Interventions

Several constitutional battles reflect this clash. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court’s decision on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple invoked constitutional morality to strike down exclusionary practices. The Court emphasized that traditions cannot override fundamental rights, especially gender equality under Article 14. The verdict, however, sparked widespread protests, with many arguing that the judiciary had ignored the sanctity of faith and community belief.

Similarly, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Court read down Section 377 of the IPC, decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations. Here too, constitutional morality triumphed over conservative cultural attitudes, affirming the dignity of LGBTQ+ citizens. Conversely, in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Court struck down instant triple talaq, holding that personal law practices cannot override constitutional guarantees of gender justice.

These cases illustrate that the Court has increasingly leaned towards constitutional morality when tradition collides with fundamental rights.

The Criticism: Is the Judiciary Overreaching?

Critics argue that courts, unelected bodies, should not impose abstract notions of constitutional morality on living traditions sustained by communities for centuries. They contend that constitutional morality is often judge-made, lacking clear boundaries, and risks alienating communities who see their faith and identity under judicial scrutiny.

Supporters, however, insist that the judiciary is not overreaching but fulfilling its constitutional duty. The Constitution, they argue, is transformative—it aims not just to preserve traditions but to reform those that perpetuate discrimination. Without judicial intervention, many oppressive practices would continue unchecked under the guise of culture.

The Contemporary Significance

This debate is not confined to temples or religious rituals. It extends to issues such as same-sex marriage, interfaith unions, menstrual taboos, and even dietary practices. The recent hearings on same-sex marriage highlight how the judiciary is once again called upon to weigh constitutional morality against entrenched social attitudes.

In a polarized society, the risk is that every judicial attempt to enforce constitutional values may be seen as hostility towards culture. Yet, the counter risk is greater: if traditions remain immune from scrutiny, the promise of equality and dignity may remain only on paper.

The Way Forward

A sustainable balance lies in dialogue. Courts must anchor their decisions in constitutional principles but also remain sensitive to the cultural contexts in which they operate. Communities, in turn, must recognize that traditions are not static— they evolve with time, often in response to moral awakenings. The role of the judiciary is not to destroy culture but to ensure it aligns with constitutional values of justice and equality.

Conclusion

So, who decides—constitutional morality or cultural tradition? Ultimately, in a constitutional democracy, the answer must tilt towards constitutional morality, for it protects the rights of individuals against the weight of majoritarian customs. Traditions may guide, but they cannot dictate when they infringe upon dignity and equality. The judiciary, though imperfect, remains the sentinel tasked with walking this fine line—ensuring that India’s cultural richness thrives without compromising the moral promises of the Constitution.