TRANSFORMATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM : A STUDY OF INDIA’S EVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY

Md Shail Uddin, Law Student, Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

ABSTRACT

      Transformative constitutionalism represents the idea that a Constitution is not merely a legal document but a living, evolving framework aimed at achieving deep social change. It reflects the belief that constitutional law must function as an instrument to transform society from conditions of inequality, exclusion, and oppression toward liberty, dignity, and justice. Though the term originated in post-apartheid South Africa, its resonance in India has been profound and distinctive. The Indian Constitution was drafted with an explicit moral and social purpose, to reconstruct a fractured society plagued by caste hierarchies, patriarchy, communal divisions, and economic exploitation. Through progressive judicial interpretation and constitutional morality, Indian courts have expanded the scope of rights and redefined the relationship between the state and the citizen. This paper explores the philosophical foundations, judicial evolution, and continuing challenges of transformative constitutionalism in India. It argues that the transformative potential of the Constitution depends on both judicial creativity and the societal willingness to internalize constitutional values. The study ultimately concludes that transformative constitutionalism is not an end-state but a continuous journey toward realizing the Constitution’s promise of justice, equality, and human dignity.

Introduction

The Constitution of India, adopted on 26 January 1950, stands as one of the most ambitious and comprehensive constitutional documents in modern history. It was not designed merely to regulate power but to transform the nature of Indian society itself. Emerging from centuries of colonial domination, caste oppression, gender discrimination, and economic deprivation, the framers of the Constitution envisioned a radical restructuring of social order through constitutional means. The preamble’s solemn promise of “justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity” was not ornamental; it was the moral foundation of a transformative project.

Transformative constitutionalism captures this vision of the Constitution as a dynamic and moral force. It implies that the Constitution is a living organism whose meaning evolves with time to meet the moral needs of a changing society. In India, this philosophy finds expression in judicial decisions that reinterpret constitutional provisions to align with principles of liberty, equality, and human dignity. It is a jurisprudential approach that seeks to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and social realities, between the text and its moral purpose.

Although the expression “transformative constitutionalism” was coined by South African scholar Karl Klare in 1998, the concept has found fertile ground in Indian constitutionalism. The framers of the Indian Constitution were deeply aware that law alone could not change society, but they believed that law could create the conditions for change. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, famously warned that political democracy would fail without social and economic democracy. This vision forms the philosophical bedrock of transformative constitutionalism, the idea that the Constitution must serve as an engine of moral and social transformation, not merely a framework for governance.

The Supreme Court of India has played a central role in advancing this transformative vision. Through a series of landmark judgments, the Court has gradually expanded the meaning of fundamental rights and infused them with substantive content. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” holding that the essential features of the Constitution could not be altered even by Parliament. This judgment was not merely a judicial innovation; it was an assertion that the Constitution embodies certain moral commitments that transcend political majorities. Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court interpreted Article 21 to include substantive due process, thereby expanding the right to life beyond physical existence to include dignity and personal liberty.

More recently, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) have reaffirmed the transformative nature of the Constitution. These judgments collectively illustrate how the judiciary has used constitutional interpretation to dismantle discriminatory laws, challenge patriarchal norms, and affirm individual autonomy. The recognition of LGBTQ+ rights, the right of women to enter Sabarimala temple, and the decriminalization of adultery all reflect the Court’s commitment to the Constitution as a transformative document.

Transformative constitutionalism, however, is not confined to judicial interpretation alone. It requires a broader constitutional culture, one where citizens, institutions, and political actors internalize constitutional values in everyday life. The Constitution’s transformative potential lies in its ability to reshape public consciousness, to cultivate respect for rights and diversity, and to challenge inherited hierarchies. Yet, this process is neither automatic nor unidirectional. It demands constant vigilance, moral courage, and institutional integrity.

In India, the transformative ideal has often come into tension with social conservatism and political populism. While the judiciary has championed constitutional morality, sections of society have resisted changes that challenge traditional beliefs and customs. This conflict between constitutional and social morality underscores the ongoing struggle between India’s progressive legal vision and its deeply embedded social prejudices. Transformative constitutionalism thus operates in a complex moral landscape, navigating between law’s idealism and society’s inertia.

This research paper examines the idea of transformative constitutionalism as both a philosophical and practical framework for understanding Indian constitutional development. It analyzes its historical roots, theoretical foundations, judicial articulations, and social implications. The paper also explores its challenges and limitations, including accusations of judicial overreach and the democratic tension between majority rule and constitutional values. Ultimately, it argues that transformative constitutionalism is not simply about courts rewriting laws but about society reimagining itself through the moral grammar of the Constitution.

Historical Foundations of Transformative Constitutionalism

The intellectual and moral roots of transformative constitutionalism can be traced to the global evolution of constitutional thought that emerged after major periods of oppression, colonialism, apartheid, and totalitarianism. The idea that a Constitution should not only limit power but also serve as a moral instrument of social reconstruction arose from societies seeking redemption through law. India and South Africa are two of the most significant examples where constitutionalism took on a transformative character, shaped by the historical trauma of subjugation and the aspiration for justice.

The South African origin of the term “transformative constitutionalism” lies in the nation’s transition from apartheid to democracy. When the South African Constitution was adopted in 1996, it was not designed to merely provide a political framework; it was intended to reverse centuries of racial domination and social exclusion. In his landmark 1998 article, Professor Karl Klare described transformative constitutionalism as a “long-term project of constitutional enactment, interpretation, and enforcement committed to transforming a country’s political and social institutions and power relationships in a democratic, participatory, and egalitarian direction.” This definition emphasized the Constitution’s moral purpose ,  to bring about substantive equality through an ongoing process of interpretation and enforcement. Klare’s articulation of this doctrine transformed how jurists and scholars viewed constitutional texts: as instruments for moral and structural change, not merely as legal codes.

In India, the concept of transformation was deeply embedded in the Constitution’s very DNA long before Klare’s formal articulation. The framers of the Indian Constitution were acutely aware that independence from colonial rule was not enough; true freedom required dismantling centuries of internal hierarchies and injustices. India’s social structure, fractured by caste, gender, and religion, posed challenges that went far beyond the reach of ordinary politics. The Constitution, therefore, became a revolutionary text, one designed not to preserve the past, but to reimagine the future.

The Constituent Assembly debates reveal this transformative ambition clearly. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, often called the chief architect of the Constitution, argued that the new republic must bring about “a life of equality and dignity for all.” He consistently warned that political democracy would collapse without social and economic democracy. His vision of the Constitution was inherently transformative ,  a legal mechanism for eradicating social evils that politics alone could not confront. The Preamble, with its commitment to “justice, liberty, equality and fraternity,” is a moral declaration of this transformation. The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy were conceived as twin pillars of this transformation: one guaranteeing enforceable rights to individuals, and the other guiding the state toward social welfare and equity.

The framers’ intent was not merely to limit state power but to direct it toward building a new social order. This can be seen in the radical inclusion of provisions like Article 17, which abolishes untouchability; Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth; and Article 39, which mandates the state to secure equitable distribution of resources. These provisions do not reflect mere policy aspirations but constitutional commitments to social transformation. The inclusion of affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) further demonstrates the framers’ understanding that equality cannot be achieved by neutrality; it requires proactive restructuring of social relations.

When compared to classical liberal constitutions, the Indian Constitution stands out as both normative and transformative. It does not merely protect negative liberties (freedom from interference) but also envisions positive freedoms (freedom to achieve one’s potential). In this respect, India’s constitutional project predates and expands upon the South African notion of transformation. It is a constitutional revolution achieved without violence, relying on moral persuasion and legal mechanisms. The Constitution was seen as a tool to heal historical wounds, much like South Africa’s later experience after apartheid.

The transformative nature of the Indian Constitution also reflects its synthesis of diverse intellectual influences. From the Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality to Gandhian notions of moral reform, from socialist principles of economic redistribution to Ambedkar’s call for annihilation of caste ,  the Indian Constitution embodies a unique fusion of moral philosophies. It is this synthesis that gives Indian constitutionalism its distinctive transformative character.

The judiciary’s role in nurturing this transformation began early in the Republic’s history. Although the initial years were marked by judicial conservatism, the 1970s saw a profound shift toward a more expansive, morally engaged form of interpretation. The Emergency period (1975–77) and its aftermath were crucial in reshaping the judicial understanding of constitutionalism. When democracy was restored, the Supreme Court began to assert that the Constitution must be interpreted in a manner that upholds its fundamental moral vision. This post-Emergency jurisprudence gave rise to what would later be explicitly called “transformative constitutionalism.”

The Court began reading socio-economic content into fundamental rights and using the Directive Principles as interpretive guides. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), decided just before the Emergency, the Supreme Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited by its essential moral foundations. This was a radical move ,  it transformed the Constitution from a political text into a moral covenant. The judgment implicitly recognized that constitutional change must align with the document’s transformative purpose rather than political expediency.

Over the following decades, Indian courts began using the Constitution as a living instrument. The doctrine of “living constitutionalism” complemented the idea of transformation by recognizing that the meaning of constitutional provisions must evolve with social progress. The judiciary’s increasing reliance on international human rights norms and comparative constitutional interpretation also strengthened this transformation.

While South Africa gave the term its modern expression, India gave it a historical and practical depth. Long before the terminology existed, the Indian Constitution had already been operating as a transformative framework ,  a legal bridge from colonial subjugation to democratic emancipation, from social hierarchy to substantive equality. The Indian experience shows that transformative constitutionalism is not a theoretical abstraction but a lived constitutional reality. It is reflected in the daily functioning of courts, the expansion of rights, and the persistent efforts to align law with justice.

The historical foundations of transformative constitutionalism thus reveal it as both a product of moral aspiration and political necessity. In India’s context, it emerged not from academic theory but from the existential struggle of building a just society out of centuries of inequality. The Constitution, therefore, remains an unfinished project ,  one that continues to evolve as the people and the courts strive to fulfill its emancipatory promise.

Theoretical Framework

Transformative constitutionalism is grounded in a distinct philosophical and jurisprudential framework that transcends traditional notions of constitutionalism. It conceives of the Constitution not merely as a legal charter delineating powers, but as a moral and political project designed to reconstruct society along egalitarian lines. At its core lie three interrelated ideas: constitutional morality, judicial creativity, and the concept of a living Constitution. Together, they form the theoretical backbone of India’s transformative jurisprudence.

The notion of constitutional morality derives primarily from the writings and speeches of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who argued that the success of the Indian Constitution depended not on its text alone but on the moral commitment of citizens and institutions to its principles. In the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar warned that democracy in India could only survive if it was undergirded by a moral consciousness rooted in respect for constitutional values. Constitutional morality, therefore, refers to adherence to the ethical principles enshrined in the Constitution, liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice, rather than blind obedience to societal customs or majority sentiments. It calls upon citizens and the state alike to act within the spirit of the Constitution, even when it conflicts with prevailing social norms.

In modern Indian jurisprudence, the concept of constitutional morality has been revitalized by the Supreme Court to justify progressive judicial interventions. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality, the Court observed that “constitutional morality cannot be martyred at the altar of social morality.” This statement encapsulates the transformative potential of constitutional morality, it enables the judiciary to elevate the Constitution’s values above the prejudices of the majority. The doctrine provides a moral compass for interpreting rights in a manner that furthers dignity and equality, ensuring that the Constitution remains a living promise rather than a frozen artifact.

Closely connected to constitutional morality is the principle of judicial creativity. Transformative constitutionalism requires a judiciary that does not merely interpret the law but breathes life into it through purposive reasoning. Traditional theories of judicial interpretation, textualism or originalism, are inadequate for a transformative Constitution, which is meant to evolve with changing times. The Indian judiciary has repeatedly recognized this. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court asserted its power to preserve the Constitution’s “basic structure,” introducing a moral dimension to constitutional interpretation. The decision established that constitutional change must align with fundamental values such as democracy, rule of law, and human dignity.

Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded Article 21, interpreting the right to life and personal liberty as encompassing the right to live with dignity, fairness, and reasonableness. This case marked the emergence of a transformative interpretative method, one that reads rights broadly and purposively to achieve justice. The judiciary thus became the moral interpreter of the Constitution, ensuring that legal formalism did not obstruct social progress.

This judicial creativity, however, is not arbitrary. It is guided by the principle that constitutional interpretation must promote the document’s transformative objectives. The Constitution is not static but a living instrument, an idea central to transformative constitutionalism. The living Constitution theory posits that constitutional meaning evolves with social change. This ensures that constitutional principles remain relevant in new contexts without requiring frequent textual amendments. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, one of the pioneers of public interest litigation (PIL), described the Indian Constitution as a “dynamic instrument” capable of adaptation to meet the needs of justice in a changing society.

The emergence of PIL jurisprudence in the late 1970s and 1980s represents one of the most concrete manifestations of the transformative approach. Through PILs, the judiciary expanded access to justice, giving voice to marginalized communities that lacked political representation. In cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court redefined the meaning of life, liberty, and livelihood under Article 21. These judgments illustrate how the Court used its interpretive power to transform the Constitution from a document of rights for the privileged few into an instrument of empowerment for the many.

Transformative constitutionalism also challenges the conventional dichotomy between the judiciary and the legislature. It reimagines the judiciary as a partner in governance, responsible not only for adjudicating disputes but for advancing constitutional ideals. This, however, raises concerns about judicial overreach. Critics argue that by adopting a transformative role, the judiciary risks encroaching upon the democratic domain of the legislature. Yet, proponents contend that in societies with entrenched social inequalities, judicial intervention becomes essential to uphold the moral integrity of the Constitution. The judiciary, in this view, acts as a moral guardian ensuring that majoritarian impulses do not erode constitutional promises.

Another key aspect of the theoretical framework is the interplay between individual rights and collective welfare. Transformative constitutionalism seeks to harmonize these dimensions, ensuring that personal freedoms coexist with social justice. The Directive Principles of State Policy, though non-justiciable, serve as the ethical foundation for this balance. The judiciary has often relied on them to interpret fundamental rights in a manner consistent with social and economic justice. This interpretive synergy between rights and directives transforms the Constitution into an integrated moral system rather than a mere collection of legal provisions.

Transformative constitutionalism also emphasizes inclusivity and participatory democracy. It envisions the Constitution as belonging not only to legal experts or judges but to the people themselves. This democratization of constitutional discourse ensures that marginalized voices find representation within the legal system. The rise of rights-based activism and social movements in India, from environmental protection to gender equality, reflects how transformative constitutionalism extends beyond the courtroom into civic life.

At a deeper level, transformative constitutionalism rests on a philosophical commitment to human dignity as the organizing principle of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed dignity as the essence of all fundamental rights. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the Court linked dignity to autonomy, choice, and the capacity for self-determination. This judgment represents the culmination of the transformative journey from a procedural Constitution to a moral one.

Hence, the theoretical framework of transformative constitutionalism is an intricate blend of moral philosophy, judicial creativity, and constitutional idealism. It transforms the Constitution from a static document into a living moral order, one that evolves, adapts, and reforms society in accordance with principles of justice and equality. In India, this theoretical foundation has given rise to a powerful jurisprudence of transformation, where the courts, guided by constitutional morality, reinterpret the law to realize the emancipatory vision of the framers. The result is a constitutional culture that does not merely reflect society but aspires to remake it in the image of justice.

Transformative Jurisprudence in India: Landmark Judgments

The evolution of transformative constitutionalism in India is best understood through its judicial expressions. The Supreme Court has been the principal architect of India’s transformative constitutional journey, consistently interpreting the Constitution as a living document responsive to changing social realities. Through its jurisprudence, the Court has expanded the scope of rights, redefined the relationship between the individual and the state, and infused moral purpose into the text of the Constitution. Several landmark judgments illustrate this journey from formal constitutionalism to a transformative, rights-oriented vision of justice.

The foundation of transformative constitutionalism in India was laid in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This case arose from a series of constitutional amendments enacted by Parliament to assert its supremacy over the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in a historic 13-judge bench decision, held that while Parliament possessed wide powers to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure.” This doctrine of basic structure was revolutionary. It signified that the Constitution was not a transient political instrument but a moral covenant embodying enduring principles such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law. By recognizing these principles as inviolable, the Court transformed constitutional interpretation from a procedural exercise into a moral one. The judgment marked the birth of the idea that the Constitution carries within it a transformative intent that even the legislature cannot subvert.

The next major milestone was Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). This case arose when the government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing reasons or a hearing. The Court seized the opportunity to reinterpret Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Rejecting earlier narrow interpretations, the Supreme Court held that any procedure restricting liberty must be “fair, just, and reasonable.” This decision fundamentally altered the meaning of personal liberty, transforming it from a negative right (protection from state interference) into a positive guarantee of human dignity. It also linked Articles 14, 19, and 21 in what came to be known as the “golden triangle” of rights, ensuring that any state action must satisfy the tests of reasonableness, equality, and due process. Maneka Gandhi thus exemplified transformative constitutionalism in action: through judicial interpretation, the Court expanded the moral and substantive content of fundamental rights beyond the text.

In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court continued to develop this transformative jurisprudence through public interest litigation (PIL). Cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which recognized the right to a speedy trial, and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), which held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life, extended constitutional protection to the poor and marginalized. Through PILs, the Court democratized access to justice and made the Constitution a living instrument for social transformation. The judiciary became an active agent of change, ensuring that the rights enshrined in the Constitution reached those who had historically been excluded from its protection.

The transformative wave reached a new zenith in the 21st century with a series of judgments that redefined social morality and personal autonomy. Among the most significant is Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the Constitution protects individual autonomy and the right to love, irrespective of sexual orientation. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, observed that the Constitution exists “to transform society for the better, not to mirror its prejudices.” This case represents the purest expression of transformative constitutionalism, where the judiciary directly confronted and dismantled social stigma through constitutional morality. The judgment not only expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 but also reaffirmed equality under Article 14 and dignity under the Preamble. It reasserted that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality, a theme central to transformative constitutionalism.

Another critical judgment embodying this transformative approach is Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), popularly known as the Sabarimala case. The issue concerned the prohibition on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Court struck down the ban as unconstitutional, holding that such exclusion violated the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and freedom of religion. The judgment recognized that religion, like society, must evolve to reflect constitutional values. The Court asserted that practices that perpetuate patriarchy and discrimination cannot claim protection under the guise of tradition. By doing so, the Court reinforced the idea that the Constitution must lead societal change rather than merely validate existing customs. The Sabarimala judgment, while controversial, stands as a bold affirmation of the transformative role of constitutional interpretation in dismantling historical injustices.

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Court continued this transformative trajectory by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery. The law treated women as property of their husbands and denied them equal moral agency. The Court unanimously held that such paternalistic laws violate the constitutional principles of autonomy, dignity, and equality. Justice Chandrachud, in his opinion, declared that the Constitution “recognizes the agency of individuals in making their own choices.” This decision signified a decisive shift from viewing individuals as subjects of state regulation to recognizing them as autonomous moral agents. It also reinforced the constitutional commitment to gender equality as a cornerstone of transformation.

These judgments collectively illustrate the judiciary’s evolving understanding of the Constitution as a transformative document. The Court has not hesitated to reinterpret the text to achieve substantive justice, even when doing so challenged deep-rooted cultural and religious norms. This interpretive boldness demonstrates that transformative constitutionalism is not merely about legal doctrine but about moral courage and empathy.

At the same time, the judiciary’s transformative role extends beyond individual rights to encompass systemic reform. In cases relating to environmental protection, such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, and in the enforcement of socio-economic rights, such as the right to education (Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh), the Court has used the Constitution as a moral framework for governance. These cases show that transformation is not confined to civil liberties but extends to collective well-being and sustainable development.

However, the transformative jurisprudence of the Supreme Court also invites reflection on its limits. While the Court has played a crucial role in advancing social justice, critics argue that judicial activism sometimes verges on overreach, undermining democratic accountability. Nonetheless, the Court’s interventions have often been necessary in a society where legislative inertia and social conservatism impede progress. The moral authority of the Constitution, as expressed through judicial interpretation, thus becomes a vital counterweight to majoritarian tendencies.

In sum, the landmark judgments of the Indian Supreme Court reveal that transformative constitutionalism is not a theoretical abstraction but a lived judicial practice. Through purposive interpretation and moral reasoning, the Court has expanded the meaning of rights, redefined the boundaries of freedom, and infused the Constitution with vitality. The judiciary’s willingness to confront prejudice, uphold dignity, and promote equality exemplifies the transformative spirit envisioned by the framers. These cases stand as milestones in India’s ongoing constitutional journey, a journey that seeks not only to interpret the law but to transform the nation.

Transformative Constitutionalism and Social Justice

At the heart of transformative constitutionalism lies the pursuit of social justice. The Indian Constitution was conceived not merely as a legal charter for governance but as a revolutionary document intended to eradicate entrenched hierarchies and promote equality in all its dimensions, social, economic, and political. Social justice, therefore, represents both the goal and the moral foundation of transformative constitutionalism. It signifies a continuous process of redistributing power, opportunities, and dignity among individuals and groups historically marginalized by structures of patriarchy, caste, class, and heteronormativity.

The framers of the Constitution embedded this vision within the Preamble, which pledges to secure “justice, social, economic, and political” to all citizens. The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy were designed as complementary mechanisms to realize this ideal. While Fundamental Rights provide enforceable guarantees of equality and liberty, the Directive Principles impose a moral duty on the state to create conditions for substantive equality. Together, they form the normative bedrock of transformative constitutionalism, ensuring that the Constitution remains not only a framework for governance but a tool for emancipation.

The most visible and persistent domain of constitutional transformation in India has been gender justice. Historically, Indian women faced systemic exclusion from political participation, property ownership, and bodily autonomy. The Constitution sought to dismantle these inequalities through Articles 14, 15, and 16, guaranteeing equality before the law, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity. The judiciary has played a vital role in breathing life into these provisions, interpreting them expansively to ensure that formal equality translates into substantive empowerment.

One of the earliest examples is Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981), where the Supreme Court struck down discriminatory employment rules that forced air hostesses to retire upon marriage or pregnancy. The Court held such provisions unconstitutional as they violated women’s right to equality and dignity. Over time, the judiciary moved from individual cases to structural interventions, addressing issues like workplace harassment, reproductive rights, and political representation. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court framed guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, asserting that gender equality is an essential component of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. This decision marked a significant moment in the evolution of transformative constitutionalism, it demonstrated that the judiciary could fill legislative gaps by invoking constitutional morality to protect fundamental rights.

In more recent times, the transformative momentum of gender equality found expression in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Sabarimala case. The Court’s decision to allow women of all ages to enter the temple not only challenged patriarchal customs but also reasserted the Constitution’s commitment to equality and dignity. Although the judgment sparked social and political controversy, it reaffirmed that constitutional morality must prevail over traditions that perpetuate discrimination. Transformative constitutionalism thus acts as a counter-majoritarian principle, ensuring that social progress is not held hostage by conservative norms.

Parallel to gender justice, transformative constitutionalism has profoundly influenced the recognition and protection of LGBTQ+ rights. The journey from criminalization to constitutional acceptance exemplifies the power of the Constitution to reshape social morality. In Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009), the Delhi High Court invoked constitutional morality to read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations. Although this decision was overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). In a historic judgment, the Court held that Section 377 violated the constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, and dignity. Justice Indu Malhotra’s observation that “history owes an apology to the members of the LGBTQ+ community” symbolized the culmination of India’s transformative constitutional journey in the realm of sexuality and identity. This case demonstrated that the Constitution is not confined to protecting existing rights but also capable of recognizing new forms of human dignity.

Transformative constitutionalism also extends to the domain of caste justice. The abolition of untouchability under Article 17 and the prohibition of discrimination under Article 15 were among the most radical provisions of the Constitution. They aimed to dismantle centuries of social hierarchy and exclusion. However, the persistence of caste-based discrimination has required continuous judicial intervention to reaffirm the Constitution’s transformative mission. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes, affirming that affirmative action is not an exception to equality but an instrument to achieve substantive equality. The Court emphasized that the Constitution recognizes historical disadvantage and seeks to remedy it through positive discrimination. This judgment demonstrated the transformative use of equality, not as a tool of neutrality but as a means of justice.

The judiciary’s approach to caste discrimination has also evolved to address its more subtle and structural forms. In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1995), the Supreme Court declared that untouchability in any form violates not only legal norms but the moral fabric of the Constitution. The Court observed that the Constitution intends to create a society in which individuals are judged by their character and capabilities, not by inherited social status. This reflects the transformative aspiration of the framers, to replace inherited inequality with moral equality.

Economic justice constitutes another essential dimension of transformative constitutionalism. The framers recognized that formal political equality would be meaningless without addressing economic deprivation. The Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 38, 39, and 41, direct the state to minimize income inequalities and secure adequate means of livelihood for all citizens. Judicial interpretation has gradually transformed these non-justiciable principles into enforceable moral obligations. In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court recognized the right to education as a fundamental right under Article 21. Similarly, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2001), the Court transformed the right to food into an enforceable entitlement under the right to life. These cases demonstrate that transformative constitutionalism operates not only through rights adjudication but also through the moral expansion of state responsibility.

Environmental justice, though not originally conceived as a constitutional right, has also become an important facet of transformative constitutionalism. Through cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Court’s environmental jurisprudence reflects an understanding that social justice must include ecological sustainability and intergenerational equity. By expanding the moral boundaries of rights, the judiciary has ensured that the Constitution remains responsive to the evolving challenges of modern society.

Collectively, these developments underscore that transformative constitutionalism in India functions as an ongoing project of moral reconstruction. It transcends legal formalism and aspires to build a society where justice is not an abstract ideal but a lived reality. The judiciary, by invoking constitutional morality and purposive interpretation, has transformed the text of the Constitution into a living moral charter for the oppressed and marginalized. Yet, the realization of social justice requires more than judicial intervention, it demands a societal commitment to equality and inclusion. Transformative constitutionalism, in its deepest sense, is a shared moral enterprise between the state, the judiciary, and the people.

Criticisms and Challenges

While transformative constitutionalism has become one of the most celebrated developments in Indian constitutional theory, it has not been without criticism. Its expansive interpretation of rights, assertive judicial role, and moral ambition have provoked debates on legitimacy, democracy, and institutional boundaries. Critics question whether the judiciary, in pursuing constitutional transformation, sometimes oversteps its constitutional mandate, thereby unsettling the delicate balance of powers that underpins democratic governance. The challenges confronting transformative constitutionalism thus lie not only in social resistance but also in questions of principle and institutional design.

A major criticism concerns judicial overreach. The judiciary’s adoption of a transformative role has often blurred the line between interpretation and legislation. By using doctrines such as constitutional morality and living constitutionalism, courts have sometimes been accused of creating new rights and duties not explicitly found in the constitutional text. This has led some scholars to argue that the judiciary, under the guise of transformation, has assumed a quasi-legislative function. For instance, in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) judgment, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, effectively creating a legal framework in the absence of legislation. Although the decision was hailed as progressive, it also reignited the debate on whether courts should fill gaps left by legislative inaction. Critics claim that such judicial creativity risks undermining the principle of separation of powers and distorting democratic accountability.

The criticism of judicial overreach becomes sharper when transformative decisions challenge deep-seated cultural or religious beliefs. The Sabarimala judgment (2018), which allowed women of menstruating age to enter the temple, exemplifies this tension. While the decision was constitutionally progressive, it provoked widespread social and religious opposition. Critics argued that the judiciary’s intervention in matters of faith represented an imposition of elite constitutional morality over popular cultural morality. The conflict between constitutional ideals and social beliefs exposed the limits of transformative constitutionalism, it can inspire moral progress, but it cannot instantly reform social consciousness. The backlash against such judgments reveals that transformative adjudication, though legally sound, must navigate complex cultural terrains where law and morality often diverge.

Another challenge lies in the tension between constitutionalism and democracy. Transformative constitutionalism relies heavily on judicial interpretation, which, while ensuring moral continuity, may appear to bypass democratic deliberation. In a parliamentary democracy, laws derive legitimacy from the will of the people expressed through elected representatives. When unelected judges reinterpret laws or invalidate them based on constitutional morality, critics contend that this disrupts the democratic process. Justice Aharon Barak of Israel once defended judicial activism by stating that the constitution represents the “deepest values of society.” However, in pluralistic societies like India, defining these “deepest values” is inherently contentious. The judiciary’s moral authority must therefore coexist with democratic legitimacy, lest it transform into judicial paternalism.

A related concern arises from the indeterminacy of constitutional morality itself. While the doctrine empowers judges to interpret the Constitution in light of its moral principles, it also risks subjective interpretation. What constitutes constitutional morality can vary depending on the judge’s worldview, social context, or political climate. Without clear parameters, the doctrine can become an open-ended tool susceptible to ideological influence. The danger, as critics note, is that transformative constitutionalism may substitute judicial morality for constitutional morality. This subjectivity can erode predictability and legal certainty, qualities essential to the rule of law. For example, in some cases, courts have invoked constitutional morality expansively to justify progressive outcomes, while in others, they have exercised restraint, leading to inconsistent jurisprudence.

Transformative constitutionalism also faces the practical challenge of enforcement. Judicial declarations of rights, however progressive, often remain ineffective without institutional or societal follow-through. The recognition of rights such as privacy, equality, and dignity requires not only judicial affirmation but administrative and cultural implementation. For instance, after Navtej Singh Johar (2018) decriminalized homosexuality, social acceptance and protection against discrimination remain elusive for the LGBTQ+ community. Similarly, the right to education recognized in Unni Krishnan (1993) and later through Article 21A, continues to face barriers due to poverty, poor infrastructure, and bureaucratic inertia. Transformative judgments thus risk remaining symbolic unless they are accompanied by robust state action and public awareness. The judiciary can articulate moral principles, but it cannot alone reconstruct society.

Another limitation arises from the potential erosion of democratic dialogue. When courts take the lead in moral transformation, other institutions, legislatures, executive bodies, and civil society, may become passive participants in constitutional change. Transformative constitutionalism, in its ideal form, envisions a partnership among all branches of government and the citizenry. However, in practice, judicial dominance can weaken this cooperative model. Scholars warn that overreliance on judicial transformation may produce what Upendra Baxi calls “judicial despotism”, a scenario where courts, though well-intentioned, become the primary source of social reform, leaving little space for democratic contestation. For transformation to be sustainable, it must emerge from both judicial innovation and democratic engagement.

Furthermore, there is a philosophical challenge inherent in transformative constitutionalism: the balance between idealism and realism. The doctrine aspires to a moral reconstruction of society through law, but law alone cannot transform entrenched social attitudes. Constitutional morality must be internalized by citizens, not merely imposed by courts. The enduring presence of caste discrimination, gender violence, and communal intolerance illustrates that legal reform, while necessary, is insufficient without corresponding moral and educational change. Transformative constitutionalism thus depends as much on social evolution as on judicial innovation.

Another critical issue is the selective application of transformation. While the judiciary has been proactive in some domains, such as gender and sexuality, it has shown restraint in others, particularly economic justice and structural inequality. Despite recognizing socio-economic rights under Article 21, courts often stop short of compelling the state to undertake redistributive reforms. This selective emphasis reflects the limits of judicial capacity in addressing complex economic and policy issues. Transformative constitutionalism, if confined to symbolic rights adjudication, risks becoming a rhetoric of progress rather than an instrument of structural change.

Lastly, transformative constitutionalism must contend with institutional fragility. The credibility of the judiciary itself is crucial to sustaining public trust in constitutional transformation. Allegations of judicial inconsistency, political bias, or lack of transparency can undermine the transformative mission. A judiciary perceived as partisan or self-serving cannot convincingly claim to be the moral guardian of the Constitution. Therefore, the transformative project requires not only progressive judgments but also institutional integrity and accountability within the judiciary itself.

Despite these criticisms, it is essential to recognize that the challenges facing transformative constitutionalism do not invalidate its purpose. Rather, they highlight the need for balance, between transformation and restraint, morality and democracy, interpretation and legislation. The judiciary must remain faithful to the moral vision of the Constitution while respecting democratic processes and social complexities. Transformative constitutionalism, properly understood, does not confer unlimited authority on judges; it entrusts them with the responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a manner that sustains its moral and democratic coherence.

In conclusion, the criticisms and challenges confronting transformative constitutionalism underscore its inherent complexity. It is both a promise and a paradox, an effort to achieve moral progress through legal means in a pluralistic society. Its success depends not on judicial activism alone but on a collective moral awakening that transcends institutional

Transformative Constitutionalism in Comparative Perspective

The idea of transformative constitutionalism, though most elaborately developed in South Africa and India, is not confined to these jurisdictions. Across the world, constitutional democracies have grappled with the challenge of using law as an instrument of social transformation. The comparative study of transformative constitutionalism reveals both its universality and its contextual specificity. While the moral ambition to achieve justice and equality through constitutional means is shared, the methods and limits of transformation differ depending on history, culture, and political structure. Examining South Africa, the United States, and Latin America provides insight into how various societies have approached the relationship between constitutional ideals and social change.

The concept of transformative constitutionalism originated in South Africa, emerging as a response to the moral catastrophe of apartheid. The South African Constitution of 1996 was drafted not merely as a legal framework for governance but as a vehicle for redressing centuries of racial oppression. Its Preamble commits to “heal the divisions of the past” and “establish a society based on democratic values, social justice, and fundamental human rights.” Unlike older constitutions that primarily restrict state power, the South African Constitution explicitly mandates transformation. It recognizes socio-economic rights, such as access to housing, health care, food, water, and education, as enforceable entitlements under Sections 26, 27, and 29.

In this context, Karl Klare’s seminal 1998 essay, Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism, articulated the moral philosophy that underpins this approach. Klare argued that South Africa’s Constitution embodies a “commitment to transforming a country’s political and social institutions and power relationships in a democratic, participatory, and egalitarian direction.” The Constitutional Court of South Africa embraced this vision early in its jurisprudence. In Soobramoney v. Minister of Health (KwaZulu-Natal) (1997) and Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom (2000), the Court interpreted socio-economic rights not as abstract promises but as actionable claims subject to reasonableness and state responsibility. Similarly, in Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign (2002), the Court compelled the government to provide anti-retroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. These decisions illustrate how transformative constitutionalism in South Africa operationalizes social justice through judicial accountability and state obligation.

The South African model offers valuable lessons for India. Both nations emerged from systems of institutionalized inequality, apartheid in South Africa and caste hierarchy and colonialism in India, and adopted constitutions as instruments of moral reconstruction. However, while South Africa explicitly constitutionalized socio-economic rights, India pursued them through directive principles and expansive judicial interpretation. The difference lies in textual design but not in moral purpose. Both systems rely on judicial creativity to convert constitutional promises into tangible realities. The South African experience underscores the potential and perils of judicial transformation, it demonstrates that courts can be agents of equality but must balance their moral authority with institutional prudence.

In contrast, the United States represents a more restrained model of constitutional evolution. The U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787, was primarily designed to limit governmental power and preserve individual liberties. It lacks explicit provisions for social or economic transformation. Yet, through judicial interpretation, especially during the Warren Court era (1953–1969), the U.S. Supreme Court infused the Constitution with transformative potential. Landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) declared racial segregation unconstitutional, overturning decades of institutionalized discrimination. The Court’s ruling in Brown exemplified transformative constitutionalism in practice, it used constitutional principles to realign social morality with ideals of equality and justice.

Subsequent cases like Roe v. Wade (1973) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) extended constitutional transformation into the realms of reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. Obergefell, which recognized same-sex marriage, drew heavily on principles of dignity and liberty, paralleling India’s Navtej Singh Johar decision. However, the U.S. approach remains comparatively cautious. The judiciary exercises transformation within a rigid textual and originalist framework, often facing strong political and ideological resistance. The American experience illustrates both the potential and the limits of constitutional transformation in a deeply divided polity, it shows that while courts can initiate moral change, enduring transformation requires sustained social and political engagement.

Moving to Latin America, one finds a more radical experiment in transformative constitutionalism. The “new constitutionalism” that emerged in the late twentieth century, especially in countries like Colombia, Brazil, and Ecuador, was driven by the aspiration to use constitutions as instruments of social and economic transformation. These constitutions explicitly incorporated socio-economic, cultural, and environmental rights, often recognizing indigenous peoples, multiculturalism, and ecological stewardship as constitutional values. The Colombian Constitution of 1991, for instance, declares the nation a “social state under the rule of law” and grants citizens the right to file “tutela” actions to protect fundamental rights.

The Colombian Constitutional Court has been a pioneer of transformative jurisprudence. In Decision T-025 of 2004, it addressed the plight of millions of internally displaced persons, holding that the state’s failure to protect them violated constitutional rights to life, dignity, and equality. The Court not only issued declaratory relief but also supervised implementation, effectively transforming the judiciary into a moral and administrative guardian of social justice. Similarly, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court has used constitutional provisions to uphold affirmative action, environmental protections, and reproductive rights. Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution went even further, recognizing the “rights of nature” and embedding ecological balance into the constitutional order. These examples demonstrate a radical vision of transformative constitutionalism, one that fuses individual rights with collective and ecological well-being.

The Latin American model offers both inspiration and caution for India. Like India, these nations face deep social inequalities and institutional fragility. Their constitutions attempt to address these through an integrated vision of rights and duties. However, the aggressive judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights in Latin America has sometimes led to concerns about the judiciary assuming quasi-legislative functions, echoing debates familiar to Indian jurisprudence. The comparative experience thus underscores that transformative constitutionalism thrives in contexts where courts maintain legitimacy, governments respect judicial authority, and civil society remains vigilant in translating rights into action.

A comparative analysis also highlights a shared theme: the moral function of the Constitution as a catalyst for transformation. Whether in South Africa’s post-apartheid reconciliation, the United States’ civil rights revolution, or Latin America’s social reconstruction, constitutions serve as moral blueprints for reimagining society. Yet, the success of this moral project depends on the interplay between text, institutions, and culture. Courts alone cannot achieve transformation; they require political cooperation and civic participation.

For India, the comparative experience reaffirms both its uniqueness and its universality. India’s constitutional journey parallels these global experiences in its aspiration to translate law into justice. However, its challenges, such as deep-rooted caste hierarchies, religious pluralism, and economic inequality, demand a nuanced and context-sensitive application of transformative principles. Unlike South Africa or Latin America, India’s transformation has evolved incrementally through judicial interpretation rather than constitutional redesign. Its success thus depends on maintaining a balance between moral aspiration and democratic legitimacy.

Therefore, the comparative study of transformative constitutionalism reveals that the doctrine is not confined to a single geography or ideology. It represents a universal moral impulse to align law with justice, dignity, and equality. Each constitutional system expresses this impulse differently, through socio-economic rights in South Africa, judicial innovation in India, moral reasoning in the United States, or radical inclusion in Latin America. Together, they affirm that transformative constitutionalism is not a transient legal theory but a global constitutional ethos, a continuing effort to make the law a living moral force in human society.

The Way Forward

Transformative constitutionalism in India has achieved remarkable progress through judicial innovation, moral reasoning, and the persistent assertion of rights. Yet, as the previous discussions reveal, its journey remains incomplete. The Constitution has provided the framework for transformation, but the realization of its moral and social goals depends on the sustained commitment of all institutions and citizens. The way forward for transformative constitutionalism lies in strengthening constitutional culture, ensuring institutional accountability, and cultivating public consciousness aligned with constitutional values.

The first imperative is to strengthen constitutional culture. Transformative constitutionalism is not a one-time judicial project; it is a continuous process that depends on the internalization of constitutional morality by society at large. For too long, the burden of constitutional transformation has rested disproportionately on the judiciary. This imbalance risks both judicial overreach and civic passivity. A truly transformative democracy requires all institutions, the legislature, the executive, and the citizenry, to act as co-guardians of the Constitution. The legislature must enact laws that give substantive effect to fundamental rights and directive principles rather than leaving their realization to judicial interpretation. The executive must ensure that constitutional mandates translate into effective policy and social welfare. Civil society, media, and educational institutions must foster awareness of constitutional principles among citizens. Constitutionalism can transform society only when citizens consciously live by its values in their daily lives.

One of the most effective ways to deepen constitutional culture is through constitutional education. The Constitution should not be confined to legal textbooks or judicial pronouncements; it must become part of the collective moral imagination. Schools and universities should integrate constitutional literacy into their curricula, emphasizing not only legal rights but civic duties and moral reasoning. The aim should be to cultivate what Ambedkar described as the “constitutional temperament”, a disposition grounded in reason, equality, and fraternity. Public campaigns and community programs can further this goal by translating complex constitutional ideals into accessible narratives that resonate with ordinary citizens. When people understand that the Constitution is not a distant document but a living charter of their rights and responsibilities, transformative constitutionalism acquires a democratic foundation rather than remaining an elite legal discourse.

Another essential step is institutional accountability and reform. For transformative constitutionalism to endure, institutions themselves must embody constitutional values. The judiciary, while a central pillar of transformation, must also ensure transparency, consistency, and ethical integrity in its own functioning. The credibility of the transformative project depends on the public’s faith in judicial impartiality and accountability. Mechanisms for judicial review, ethics oversight, and internal accountability should be strengthened to ensure that judges remain faithful to constitutional principles and free from external influence. Similarly, the legislature must avoid majoritarian excesses that undermine the moral core of the Constitution, while the executive must uphold the rule of law rather than political expediency.

The relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government must evolve from confrontation to cooperative constitutionalism. Transformation cannot be sustained through judicial decrees alone; it requires institutional collaboration. The judiciary should exercise restraint where appropriate, allowing space for democratic deliberation, while the legislature and executive should embrace the Constitution’s transformative mission rather than viewing it as judicial overreach. Institutional dialogue, rather than institutional rivalry, can ensure that transformation remains both legitimate and effective.

Another dimension of the way forward lies in bridging the gap between legal rights and lived realities. Transformative constitutionalism must move beyond courtroom victories to tangible social change. For instance, while the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and gender equality in Sabarimala (2018) were landmark achievements, their full realization requires structural changes, anti-discrimination laws, sensitization programs, and community-level reforms. Similarly, the right to education, health, and livelihood must be accompanied by effective implementation mechanisms and adequate resource allocation. The transformative potential of the Constitution can only be realized when its moral ideals are translated into material conditions that enhance human dignity.

A crucial task is to reinvigorate the Directive Principles of State Policy as a living moral guide for governance. Although non-justiciable, these principles express the Constitution’s socio-economic vision and must inform policymaking. Successive governments have often treated them as aspirational, but their transformative purpose demands active realization. Policies on equitable distribution of wealth, environmental sustainability, gender parity, and social welfare should be explicitly grounded in these directives. The convergence of fundamental rights and directive principles, what Justice Bhagwati once called the “fusion of conscience and structure”, must remain central to the future of constitutional governance.

Furthermore, transformative constitutionalism must embrace intersectionality, the understanding that inequalities of caste, gender, class, sexuality, and religion are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Transformative justice cannot be achieved through isolated interventions. Policies and judicial reasoning must account for the complex realities of individuals who experience multiple forms of discrimination. For example, Dalit women face both caste and gender oppression, and addressing one without the other perpetuates partial justice. The Constitution’s transformative promise will only be fulfilled when equality is understood not as uniformity but as justice tailored to context and lived experience.

Another priority for the future is the cultivation of constitutional empathy. Transformation requires more than legal reasoning; it demands moral imagination. Judges, lawmakers, and citizens must be able to see the Constitution not merely as a text but as a human document that speaks to suffering, dignity, and hope. Constitutional empathy compels institutions to consider the human consequences of their actions and to interpret the law in ways that uplift rather than exclude. This moral sensibility is what transforms constitutionalism from a procedural mechanism into a humane philosophy.

Technology and globalization introduce new challenges for transformative constitutionalism. Issues such as data privacy, surveillance, digital exclusion, and environmental degradation demand an adaptive constitutional response. The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to confront modern threats to liberty. Going forward, the Constitution must evolve to address emerging rights related to artificial intelligence, digital autonomy, and ecological survival. A truly transformative Constitution must remain responsive to new forms of injustice that transcend traditional categories.

Finally, the success of transformative constitutionalism depends on reclaiming the moral vision of the Constitution as a shared societal project. The Constitution should not be seen merely as a legal text for courts to interpret but as a collective covenant that binds citizens in mutual respect and solidarity. The ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity must inform public discourse, political debate, and everyday interactions. As Ambedkar reminded the nation, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated.” Cultivating that sentiment, through education, participation, and moral courage, is the only way to sustain transformation.

The way forward, therefore, lies not in abandoning transformative constitutionalism but in grounding it more deeply within India’s democratic and cultural fabric. The Constitution must continue to evolve, not as a reaction to crises but as a deliberate pursuit of justice. The judiciary must remain a vigilant moral interpreter, the legislature a faithful executor of constitutional principles, and the people their ultimate custodians. The transformative journey that began in 1950 is far from complete. Its endurance will depend on the willingness of every generation to renew the Constitution’s moral promise, to transform not just institutions but the very consciousness of society.

Conclusion

Transformative constitutionalism represents the moral soul of the Indian Constitution. It embodies the conviction that a Constitution is not a static legal document but a living instrument of justice, meant to reshape social structures and human consciousness. The framers of the Indian Constitution envisioned a nation liberated not only from colonial rule but also from the chains of caste, gender, poverty, and superstition. They understood that democracy without equality would be hollow, and equality without fraternity would be fragile. The Constitution was thus crafted not to preserve society as it was, but to transform it into what it ought to be.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has emerged as the principal interpreter and guardian of this transformative vision. Through landmark judgments, Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, Navtej Singh Johar, Sabarimala, Joseph Shine, and many others, the judiciary has expanded the moral horizons of the Constitution. These decisions reveal a consistent theme: that constitutional rights must be interpreted not as rigid entitlements but as evolving expressions of human dignity. The judiciary has given life to the Constitution by aligning its interpretation with the ethical imperatives of liberty, equality, and justice. This jurisprudence has not only deepened the meaning of rights but has also demonstrated how constitutional morality can serve as a corrective to social prejudice and political inertia.

Yet, as the analysis in this paper has shown, transformative constitutionalism is both a promise and a challenge. Its strength lies in its moral ambition; its difficulty lies in its implementation. The judiciary’s proactive role, while often necessary, raises legitimate concerns about the balance of powers and democratic legitimacy. Transformation imposed from above can generate social resistance and institutional tension. True transformation, therefore, requires a partnership between the judiciary, the legislature, the executive, and the people. Courts may articulate the moral vision, but it is society that must internalize and live by it.

The future of transformative constitutionalism in India depends on building a culture of constitutional morality that extends beyond the courtroom. Citizens must see the Constitution not merely as a source of rights but as a shared ethical framework. Educational institutions must teach constitutional values as lived virtues rather than abstract doctrines. Political leaders must embody the spirit of constitutionalism in governance rather than treating it as an instrument of convenience. The media and civil society must hold institutions accountable to constitutional principles, ensuring that justice is not confined to words but realized in practice.

In its deepest sense, transformative constitutionalism is about moral evolution, the ongoing effort to align law with conscience, and power with justice. It seeks to replace inherited hierarchies with moral equality and to replace coercion with dignity. In this process, the Constitution becomes a living teacher, constantly reminding citizens of their higher ethical duties to one another. The transformation it envisions is not merely institutional or economic but spiritual and cultural. It calls upon every individual to act with empathy, fairness, and respect, thereby turning constitutional values into social habits.

The comparative study of South Africa, the United States, and Latin America shows that the transformative impulse is universal but contextually shaped. In all these societies, constitutional law has been used to challenge oppression and affirm human dignity. India’s contribution to this global tradition lies in its integration of legal, moral, and social reform into a single constitutional vision. The Indian Constitution, while legally precise, remains morally expansive, it recognizes that justice must evolve with time, and that no generation has the right to freeze the moral progress of the next.

However, transformation is never complete. Each success brings new challenges; each judgment opens new debates. The persistence of caste discrimination, gender inequality, communal polarization, and economic disparity reveals that India’s transformative journey is far from over. But these challenges do not diminish the Constitution’s moral power; they reaffirm its necessity. The Constitution endures precisely because it offers a framework to confront, not evade, these moral crises.

In conclusion, transformative constitutionalism is both India’s greatest constitutional inheritance and its most demanding moral task. It asks every generation to reinterpret freedom, equality, and fraternity in light of new realities. It requires courage from judges, integrity from lawmakers, and empathy from citizens. Above all, it demands faith, in law as a means of justice, in morality as the foundation of power, and in humanity as the ultimate measure of progress.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s warning in the Constituent Assembly remains timeless: “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated.” The future of transformative constitutionalism depends on whether India can cultivate that morality, patiently, courageously, and collectively. For as long as the Constitution continues to inspire moral reflection and social renewal, the transformative project remains alive. It is not merely the work of courts or governments, but of every citizen who dares to believe that justice is not only a legal right but a human duty.

References

1.   Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335.

2.   Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.

3.   Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

4.   Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom, 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC).

5.   Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.

6.   Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 SCC 1.

7.   Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992 Supp) 3 SCC 217.

8.   Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39.

9.   Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

10.  Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

11.  Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

12.  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395.

13.  Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign, 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC).

14.  Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 160 DLT 277 (Del HC 2009).

15.  Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.

16.  Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.

17.  People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2001) 5 SCC 496.

18.  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

19.  Soobramoney v. Minister of Health (KwaZulu-Natal), 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC).

20.  State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, (1995) 2 SCC 273.

21.  Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645.

22.  Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.

23.  Ambedkar, B. R. (1948). Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. XI. Lok Sabha Secretariat.

24.  Austin, G. (1999). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press.

25.  Barak, A. (2005). The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton University Press.

26.  Baxi, U. (1980). The Indian Supreme Court and Politics. Eastern Book Company.

27.  Bhuwania, A. (2017). Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India. Cambridge University Press.

28.  Bilchitz, D. (2013). Dignity, equality and freedom: The foundational values of the South African Constitution. South African Journal on Human Rights, 29(1), 1–25.

29.  Chandrachud, D. Y. (2018). Constitutional morality and the transformative role of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Cases Journal, 10(J-1).

30.  Choudhry, S. (Ed.). (2006). The Migration of Constitutional Ideas. Cambridge University Press.

31.  Fowkes, J. (2016). Building the Constitution: The Practice of Constitutional Interpretation in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Cambridge University Press.

32.  Klare, K. E. (1998). Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism. South African Journal on Human Rights, 14(1), 146–188.

33.  Krishnaswamy, S. (2009). Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Oxford University Press.

34.  Sathe, S. P. (2002). Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits. Oxford University Press.

35.  Singh, M. P. (2011). V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India (12th ed.). Eastern Book Company.