Constitutional Morality, Ambedkar and Caste in India

Constitutional morality stands for the ethical and moral values embedded in the Constitution that guide the ideal behaviour of citizens and institutions. In India, this topic has gained significance in socio-political discourse and jurisprudence.  The Supreme Court has invoked Constitutional morality in its landmark rulings to uphold rights and justice even when societal norms are contrary. Dr Ambedkar championed this idea in the Constituent Assembly debates, stating that the Constitution’s values must triumph over regressive social norms, acting as a beacon of social transformation. One of the deepest social norms in india that is embedded in indian culture is the caste system - a stratified hierarchy that even predates the Constitution by the length of a mileThisthi s essay explores the idea of Constitutional morality in the Indian context - we shall examine Ambedkar’s expectation, judicial interpretations, and Constitutional morality acts in cases of the caste system. This evaluates if Constitutional morality has been able to tackle and transform caste based hierarchies or if the promise is partially fulfilled in practice.

Defining Constitutional Morality

Constitutional Morality is defined as a faithful adherence to the core principles of the Constitution, which fosters a social order and a governance that aligns itself with those principles. The term orinates from the 19th century historian George Crote who described it as “a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution, enforcing obedience to authority and acting under and within these forms… with a perfect confidence in the bosom of every citizen amidst the bitterness of party contest that the forms of the Constitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents than his own.” 

In essence, it implies that all participants in a democratic government and citizens) the rule of law, rights and procedures laid down by the Constitution even in times of fierce disagreement.. This concept goes beyond literal compliance. It must cultivate a spirit of justice, equality, and restraint in public life as the Constitution guides. Ambedkar argued that morality is not an innate quality but must be learned and imbibed, not a natural sentiment but one that the masses must cultivate. Constitutional, moral India carries transformative aspiration in an attempt to replace existing somersaults with the vision of the Constitution—a vision bound on the ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice. 

Conssitutional morality is different from popular morality or social morality - which means prevailing societal norms and public opinion of right and wrong that may be rooted in tradition, history and culture, The delhi high court in the landmark Naz foundation case of 2009 drew that “Popular morality, as distinct from a Constitutional morality derived from Constitutional values, is based on shifting and subjective notions of right and wronge is any type of ‘moral that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be ‘Constitutional’ morality and not public morality.” The Constitution aims to enshrine a higher moral order to guide the nation.

Ambedkar’s view of Constitutional Morality

As chairman of the drafting committee, Ambedkar found Constitutional morality integral to his national-building project. Ambedkar views the Constitution as a tool to frame new democratic norms and ethical governance in a society that he viewed as deeply divided and undemocratic. A profound respect for Constitutional forms, a willingness to abide by the rule of law, and an unwavering commitment to the rights and procedures must be adopted by leaders and citizens alike. He also cautioned that even a well-written Constitution could be subverted by simply changing the form of administration. Therefore, a moral sense of fidelity to the was paramount.

Ambedkar kept repeating that indians are ‘yet to learn’ Constitutional morality. The answer lies in his assessment of Indian society, especially the caste system and authoritarian social structures. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, Ambedkar warned that India was entering “a life of contradictions” on becoming a republic: “In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics, we will recognise the principle of one man, one vote and one value. In our social and economic life, we shall continue to deny the principle of one man, one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we deny equality in our social and economic life?

He implicitly refers to caste hierarchy and social inequality, which conflict with the values embedded in Constitutional morality. Ambedkar’s view of Constitutional morality was an India where the Constitution's promise of liberty, fraternity and equality trumped over ancient prejudices, especially caste. The Constitution was not just seen as a legal document but as a social manifesto that could reform the fabric of Indian society. Constitutional morality was both a guide to governance and a civic virtue among citizens. The dual aspect of it being institutional as well as popular was essential. Ambedkar hoped that over time Constitutional morality would so permeate indian society that all differences between Constitutional morality and social practices would dissolve. 

Constitutional Morality and the Caste System

The caste system is a rigid social hierarchy that is based on birth - it is the most significant test of Constitutional morality in India. The Indian Constitution condemns caste discrimination. Article 17 abolished untouchability. Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination in public and make way for affirmative action. These interventions were revolutionary in helping create a mechanism that will dismantle the social structure of caste based inequality. The Preamble itself revolves around securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity for all citizens, clearly adding to the odds with the provisions of the caste system.

Having led the movement against caste oppression, Ambedkar saw the Constitution as a means to achieve a social revolution. Political democracy must rest on a social democracy, he believed. Constitutional morals must not simply apply to institutions but also to social relations. This is exemplified in including reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the legislature and public employment to ensure representation for historically marginalised communities. Likewise, Article 26(2)(b) empowers the state to open Hindu temples to all classes and sections, authorising reforms to end caste segregation in religious practice. This signifies how the social morality of that time had to make way for Constitutional morality. 

The interaction between Constitutional morality and caste in practice has been fraught and complex. On one hand, Constitutional morality directly challenges caste - it demands that every individual is an equal, both in dignity and rights, striking at the core of caste that ranks and differentiates between opinions since birth,  Teeth to this moral mandate are given by laws flowing from this very philosophy - namely the Protection of Civill Rights Act of 1955 against untoiuchability and the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atorciites) The legislature and also the judiciary have enforced anti-caste principles in various instances. Outlawing manual scavenging as violative of Article 17 and basic dignity, another example could be the judiciary directing authorities to protect inter-caste marriages from harassment and vigilantes. We can interpret various judgments as chipping away at the caste system by reaffirming individual choice, rights and dignity.

Caste, as a social institution, has proven to be highly resilient; it has adapted to the modern contexts in ways that often blunt the force of Constitutional details. Surinder S Jodhka, a scholar, has shown that caste did not go with economic development or democratic politics. Still, it addresses India's changing society and how it has morphed into new forms and structures, such as social financialomic exclusion, influencing social networks, matrimonial choices and even economic opportunities in India. Jodhka argues that urban job markets also reflect how Dalits face invisible barriers.

From a socio-socio-political standpoint, one also considers how politics challenges and reproduces care. On the transformative side, it has witnessed the rise of Dalit leaders and increased participation, leading to increased Dalit representation in institutions. Dalit assertion in various states shows how Constitutional ideals have given the marginalised a framework to claim political power and basic dignity. However, at this cost, it is also reasserting caste identity among the masses, thereby embedding caste further into socio-political relations.

The interplay of Constitutional morality and caste is dialectical. Constitutional morality is incessantly pushed to continue democratising social relations, fuelling laws, court decisions, and movements that oppose caste discrimination. 

Has conventional morality transformed caste hierarchies

If one were to ask whether Constitutional morality has succeeded in uprooting or diminishing caste-based hierarchies in India, the answer would be nuanced. On paper and in principle, Constitutional morality can be viewed as the Indian Republic is committed to equal practice; however, change has been uneven, and caste hierarchies have been stubbornly entrenched in others.

The Constitutional abolition of untouchability has had real effects - practices like segregated wells, access to schools, or public bans at common entry have been significantly reduced. Dalits are seen routinely entering the institutions of power; the doors were closed. India has seen individuals from former untouchable communities go on to serve as Chief Ministers, National Cabinet Ministers and even as the President of India. The Constitution's protection and push for creating more opportunities show its commitment to its liberal democratic framework, fulfilling its promise to its moral vision of an inclusive society. 

Social indicators have also improved retrospectively; the literacy rates among Scheduled Castes have risen dramatically since independence. Gaps still exist, but they have narrowed. Dalit achievement is more visible and celebrated, and intercaste marriages have become normalised in urban settings. Youth in cosmopolitan areas form friendships across castes, reflecting the spread of institutional values of fraternity and equality to a certain degree.

The judiciary’s stance has always been anti-caste. Courts uphold affirmative action policies parallel with Constitutional morality, reading them as fulfilling the principle of equal opportunity and substantive equality. Even when these policies are challenged legally, the judiciary has read the quality clause of the Constitution as an undertaking and the equality clause of the Constitution as an understanding of historical injustice. 

Then, the standard of equality is an interpretation of moral substance. Also, when political or social pressure has sought to undermine safeguards for Dalits, represented in a 2018 Supreme Court judgment that added new safeguards making arrests under the SC/ST Atrocities Act harder, which sparked mass public outrage, the courts changed their position or the legislature acted quickly to reinstate the provisions. This reaction indicates an overall agreement that manifest caste discrimination is not acceptable.

It is important to note that Constitutional morality's language has infiltrated public language. Activists seeking to challenge caste discrimination also appeal to the Constitution and ideals expressed by Ambedkar. For example, attempts to eliminate manual scavenging or erase caste humiliation from schools (such as segregation of midday meals) cast such practices as deviations from Constitutional ideals. This is a tremendous achievement: caste is no longer publicly justified as being divinely commanded or socially necessary; the Constitution's ideology has instead established equality as the reigning normative order, which has disadvantaged even status quo defenders.

Even with these advances, caste hierarchy is not eradicated in tangible terms; Socioeconomic indicators point to how Dalits and Adivasis continue to face significant disadvantages in a range of human development indicators such as education, income levels, health status and housing conditions. Most of India’s poor and illiterate are from lower castes. Caste-based discrimination and access to resources are yet relevant areas. The long-term intergenerational effects of discrimination and exploitation continue to show their impact on modern India.  

Although a middle class among Dalits has begun to emerge, most Dalits residing in rural areas remain engaged in low-paying menial jobs, frequently in a patron-client dependence with upper castes - reproducing the previous hierarchy, albeit within new economic frameworks.

Social attitudes have been slow to change; Endogamy is still the norm - research shows how an enormous percentage of indians are yet marrying within their caste (>90%), identifying the persistence of caste divisions in not just societal but also private life. When individuals defy such norms, they are subject to violent retaliation in the form of ‘honor killings’ by relatives or community members. Such idicudents point to the fact that much of the morality of caste endogamy still prevails over the Constitutional morality of choice and quality. Thjeb suprmee court is weidley denounced honor killingd ass entirerelly idellegal  - hence urging institutions to protect intercaste couples however, enfocemenrt onn ground is spotty and local officials are even sometimes seen to be sypathiing weith the caste perpetrators. This gap between Constitutional idealism and ground reality measures Constitutional morality’s partial success.

Caste discrimination continues in more subtle forms. Humiliation goes on to become systemic, discrimination and oppression turn violent in forms beyond simply just the physical, it can lead to social exclusion and take other subtle forms to keep the divide prevalent. A may technically have access to a restaurant or a temple, but there have been cases and anecdotal evidence of Dalits being served with separate cutlery, maintaining an informal divide. The ongoing need for government efforts like Swachh Bharat to end manual scavenging—a degrading job largely relegated to Dalits—further illustrates this issue; despite legal bans as of yet, hundreds of people (largely Dalits) die annually manually cleaning sewers, symbolic of an ugly reality.  

At schools, Dalit students have been segregated or harassed, made to sit separately from upper caste kids. Access to shared materials and resources such as water from a shared well continues to be a hot topic in India.

As Jodhka terms this, caste is sadly not a relic of the past. Though it is being chipped away by judicial and legislative efforts, caste continues to adapt and evolve to changing times.

Constitutional morality in India is a progressive beacon, often coinciding with the fight against social inequality and caste. It had spurred significant strides toward preserving human dignity. This coincidence of Constitutional morality with the anti caste imperative is not by accident - the Constitution was brought into existence to make way for a new moral order. As for the success of Constitutional morality, its success will depend on perseverance on the part of the state. The primary goal of the Constitution is to achieve a caste-free India, it is a goal the nation wishes to inch closer to, guided by principles enshrined in the Constitution of India.