Independence, Law and Morality

Chetan Prabhakar

chetanprabhakarassociates@gmail.com

On 15 August 2026, India celebrates its 80th Independence Day. It is an occasion to remember the sacrifices that ended colonial rule and secured India's political sovereignty. But nearly eight decades after Independence, celebration must also be accompanied by constitutional introspection. The question before a mature democracy is no longer merely whether it is free, but whether that freedom is being exercised and protected in accordance with the Constitution, the Rule of Law and constitutional morality.

India became politically independent on 15 August 1947. The Constitution, which came into force on 26 January 1950, transformed that political freedom into a constitutional order. Independence gave Indians the authority to govern themselves; the Constitution imposed limits upon how that authority could be exercised.

That distinction lies at the heart of Indian democracy. The Preamble begins with the words “We, the People of India.” Sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people. Parliament, the executive and every other institution of the State exercise authority under the Constitution, not above it. The Supreme Court itself describes the Constitution as the supreme legal authority binding the legislative, executive and judicial organs of government.

This is the essence of the Rule of Law. Rule of Law does not simply mean that laws exist or that citizens must obey them. It means that governmental power itself is controlled by law. The ruler and the ruled are both subject to the constitutional order. Power cannot become a substitute for legality, and political or numerical strength cannot become a justification for arbitrariness.

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws. Articles 19 and 21 protect fundamental freedoms and life and personal liberty. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce constitutional and legal rights.

These provisions establish a fundamental proposition: in constitutional India, authority must be capable of being questioned. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the very “heart and soul” of the Constitution because rights without remedies would eventually become declarations without consequences.

Yet written constitutional provisions alone cannot preserve democracy. A Constitution also requires what Ambedkar repeatedly emphasised as constitutional morality.

Constitutional morality means fidelity not merely to the words of the Constitution but also to its democratic spirit—liberty, equality, fraternity, institutional restraint, tolerance of disagreement and respect for constitutional processes.

The Supreme Court has given this idea considerable importance. It has explained constitutional morality as adherence to constitutional principles by everyone from ordinary citizens to high constitutional functionaries. It has further recognised that constitutional morality extends beyond literal observance of constitutional provisions and embraces the values necessary for a pluralistic and inclusive constitutional society.

The distinction between constitutional morality and popular morality is crucial. A constitutional democracy cannot determine every question simply by asking what the majority wants. Fundamental rights exist precisely because certain liberties must survive changing political majorities and social attitudes. Constitutional morality demands that institutions protect constitutional values even when doing so is politically inconvenient or unpopular.

It also requires restraint in the exercise of lawful power. The existence of power does not necessarily justify its maximum use. Constitutional governance requires those entrusted with authority to ask not only, “Can we legally do this?” but also, “Is the exercise of this power consistent with the spirit and values of the Constitution?”

This becomes particularly relevant when India's contemporary Rule of Law performance is examined.

The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 places India 86th among 143 countries, with an overall score of approximately 0.49. In 2024, India stood 79th among 142 countries, with a score of approximately 0.50. The WJP records India's 2025 rank change as minus six places and states that its overall score declined by approximately 1.7 per cent.

The underlying indicators deserve even greater attention. In the 2025 Index, India ranked 62nd on constraints on government powers, 99th on absence of corruption, 103rd on fundamental rights, 114th on civil justice and 89th on criminal justice. India performed considerably better on open government, ranking 43rd globally and first in South Asia on that factor.

These figures must be interpreted carefully. An international index is not a judicial verdict upon India's democracy, nor can any single ranking capture the complexities of a nation of more than a billion people. The WJP methodology itself measures eight dimensions through household and expert surveys. Nevertheless, a decline from India's 2024 position, coupled with deterioration in the overall score, cannot simply be ignored. It should provoke institutional introspection rather than political defensiveness.

The decline is also part of a broader international phenomenon. The WJP reported that Rule of Law deteriorated in 68 per cent of the countries surveyed in 2025, compared with 57 per cent in 2024. India is therefore not alone in confronting this challenge.

India's constitutional architecture remains formidable. It has an independent judiciary with extensive powers of judicial review, enforceable Fundamental Rights, elected legislatures, a vibrant legal profession and constitutional remedies unavailable in many political systems.

The problem lies in ensuring that constitutional promises translate into everyday reality. When litigation takes years or decades, access to justice becomes unequal. When an ordinary citizen cannot effectively challenge administrative arbitrariness because of cost or delay, the theoretical availability of a remedy loses some of its practical meaning. When institutions act according to political convenience rather than constitutional responsibility, constitutional morality suffers even if the formal text of the Constitution remains untouched.

This is why the Rule of Law cannot be the responsibility of judges alone. Legislatures must respect constitutional limitations. Governments must exercise discretion fairly and transparently. Investigating agencies and regulatory institutions must act independently and according to law. Courts must provide effective and timely remedies. Lawyers must defend constitutional processes rather than abandon them when inconvenient. Citizens must respect lawful institutions while retaining their democratic right to question those exercising public power.

The Constitution itself imposes responsibilities upon citizens through Article 51A, including the duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions.

This gives Independence Day a meaning far deeper than ceremonial patriotism.

The national flag represents our sovereignty, but constitutional morality determines how that sovereignty is exercised. Patriotism cannot require unquestioning acceptance of governmental action because questioning power through constitutional means is itself part of democracy. Equally, disagreement cannot justify disregard for lawful institutions and constitutional procedures.

Therein lies the profound relationship between 15 August and 26 January. 15 August gave India sovereignty.

26 January subjected that sovereignty to the Constitution.

One liberated India from foreign rule; the other sought to protect Indians from arbitrary rule. As India celebrates Independence Day in 2026, therefore, the decline reflected in recent Rule of Law indicators should not become an occasion for despair. It should become a call for constitutional renewal.

India's next democratic achievement will not come merely from economic strength, technological advancement or international influence. It will also be measured by whether an ordinary citizen can obtain justice without unreasonable delay; whether liberty survives disagreement; whether institutions remain stronger than individuals occupying them; and whether governmental power, regardless of who exercises it, remains accountable to law.

Political independence was achieved in 1947. Constitutional independence must be defended every day.

The ultimate measure of the Republic is therefore not merely whether Indians govern India. It is whether those who govern, those who judge, those who administer and those who are governed remain faithful to the Constitution.

That fidelity—to law above power, constitutional values above temporary convenience, and constitutional morality above majoritarian impulse—is perhaps the most meaningful tribute India can offer to its Independence.

(The Author is an Advocate)