(a) Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution (b) Objective Resolution of the Constituent Assembly (c) Legal remedies…

(a) Constitutional morality in the Indian Constitution

Constitutional morality refers to the principled adherence to the core values, substantive norms, and democratic spirit of the Constitution over majoritarian or transient popular impulses. Borrowing from the historian George Grote, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly on 4 November 1948 that constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment but must be cultivated, since democracy in India was "only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic"; it serves as an institutional safeguard against administrative tyranny and societal prejudices. Unlike subjective public or popular morality, constitutional morality is anchored in pluralism, individual liberty, institutional checks, and egalitarianism. In landmark verdicts such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and the Sabarimala Case (2018), the Supreme Court held that constitutional morality must override entrenched social dogmas and majoritarian preferences, and in Manoj Narula (2014) and Government of NCT of Delhi (2018) it used the idea to discipline the conduct of constitutional functionaries. Critics, including a former Attorney-General, have warned that an open-ended "constitutional morality" can become a vehicle for judicial subjectivity. Thus, it operates as a dynamic, transformative standard ensuring that state power remains tethered to constitutional ideals and individual rights.

(b) Objective Resolution of the Constituent Assembly

Moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946 during the first session of the Constituent Assembly, the Objective Resolution defined the philosophical framework and normative compass of independent India’s constitutional design. Adopted unanimously on 22 January 1947, it proclaimed India as an Independent Sovereign Republic committed to securing justice (social, economic, and political), equality of status and opportunity, and fundamental freedoms of expression, belief, and association. It explicitly mandated safeguards for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed classes, marrying liberal democracy with social justice. The Resolution served as the direct conceptual and spiritual foundation for the Preamble of the Constitution. By delineating the fundamental commitments of the state, it transformed the Assembly from a procedural deliberative body into an instrument of profound socio-economic transformation.

(c) Legal remedies in Part III of the Constitution of India

Legal remedies under Part III actualize the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, ensuring that fundamental rights are substantive entitlements rather than mere declarations. Article 32, revered by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, constitutes a Fundamental Right in itself, guaranteeing direct access to the Supreme Court for rights enforcement through five prerogative writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. Concurrently, Article 226 equips High Courts with a broader discretionary writ jurisdiction for enforcing Fundamental Rights as well as ordinary legal rights. Through progressive judicial interpretations, procedural barriers were dismantled via Public Interest Litigation (PIL), formulated in S.P. Gupta (1981) and utilized in cases like Vishaka (1997) to remedy human rights violations and legislative vacuums. The right under Article 32 can be suspended only during an emergency under Article 359, and since the 44th Amendment (1978) the enforcement of Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended at all. These remedies maintain the constitutional rule of law against state excess.

(d) Relevance of the Legislative Council

Under Article 169, Parliament may create or abolish a State Legislative Council if the State Legislative Assembly passes a resolution by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of those present and voting. Only six states have one today - Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and Karnataka - after Jammu and Kashmir's was abolished in 2019. The Council serves as a bicameral revising chamber, intended to check hasty, emotionally driven legislation enacted by the lower house while facilitating mature deliberation. It provides institutional representation to functional groups, such as graduates, teachers, and local bodies, enabling domain experts to contribute to state governance without contesting direct elections. However, its relevance is frequently questioned due to its merely delaying powers (maximum four months) and its misuse as a backdoor for politically defeated candidates. This ambivalence is evident in state practices, such as Andhra Pradesh abolishing its Council in 1985 and reviving it in 2007, then resolving to abolish it again in 2020 before withdrawing the resolution in 2021, while proposals for new councils in Rajasthan, Assam and West Bengal remain pending.

(e) Women's role in anti-arrack movement

The Anti-Arrack Movement of 1992–93 in Andhra Pradesh remains a classic example of autonomous grassroots women's mobilization in post-independence India. Originating in Dubagunta village of Nellore district through the National Literacy Mission’s adult education classes, rural women organized under Mahila Sanghams and DWCRA (Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas) groups to resist state-sponsored liquor distribution. The movement attacked the nexus between domestic violence, male alcoholism, and household impoverishment, directly confronting arrack contractors, local syndicates, and the excise administration. By blockading auctions and shutting down vends, women forced political parties to respond: the Congress government of Kotla Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy banned arrack from October 1993, and N.T. Rama Rao’s TDP, elected on a prohibition promise, imposed total prohibition in January 1995 - though it was diluted and then lifted in 1997 under fiscal pressure, showing the limits of the victory. The movement demonstrated the transformative capacity of state-facilitated self-help collectives evolving into militant, autonomous political actors capable of setting the state's legislative agenda.