Navigating the Nexus of Law and Morality:

Case Studies and Implications

SURAJ UDAY
233510038113
23/69/HP/30

CENTRE FOR PHILOSOPHY

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Abstract: This research paper examines the intricate relationship between law and morality as
vital components of social control. It argues that ethical principles have historically influenced
legislative and judicial law-making, despite attempts to separate the two. The paper highlights
the distinction between the moral considerations guiding judicial law (crafted in a principled
court environment) and the politically driven nature of statutory law. Through case studies,
including the "cash for query" scandal and the impeachment of Justice Ramaswamy, it
emphasizes the judiciary's role in upholding ethical standards. Ultimately, it posits that law is
an extension of morality, grounded in a shared ethical foundation exemplified by international
human rights frameworks.

Keywords- Law, morality, social control, judicial law, legislative law, ethical principles, "cash
for query" scandal, impeachment, justice, international human rights.

Roots of Morality and Ethical Frameworks

The ancient Greeks established a theoretical foundation for law through the doctrine of natural
rights, positing that certain rights are inherent and universal. This idea greatly influenced
Roman thought during its classical period, where jurists aimed to uncover and articulate the
essence of natural law. They sought to weave Greek ethical philosophy into a framework that
provided an idealistic form of Roman legal principles. As the centuries progressed, the Middle
Ages introduced a theological underpinning to natural law, where Christian morals were
viewed as the bedrock of legal systems.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, natural law theories flourished, grounded in
rational moral principles. In England, this period marked the rise of the court of chancery,
which developed equity as a legal concept. The ethical ideas drawn from sixteenth-century
casuistry, alongside the moral understandings held by chancellors, acted as agents of reform,
pushing legal systems toward more liberal interpretations. Across Continental Europe, similar
philosophical ideas from jurists concerning the law of nature were employed in a comparable
manner. Here, moral duties began to transform into legal obligations, effectively merging
individual moral agency with legal identity. This shift meant that moral principles were
increasingly recognized as legal rules, illustrating how ethical ideas gradually permeated legal
frameworks worldwide.

By the late eighteenth century, Kant introduced a new perspective, moving away from a strictly
rational basis for law. He proposed a metaphysical understanding of natural law that aimed to
demonstrate the inherent obligations of the legal order. In contrast to earlier thought, analytical
jurists asserted that law did not require an external foundation; rather, it existed independently
as a system of rules imposed by sovereign authority. Up until Kant’s time, positive law was
often contrasted with both ideal moral law and natural law. Kant challenged this notion by
placing immutable principles that govern law-making against positive law itself, arguing that
laws and their creation should adhere to these foundational principles.

While positive law and its doctrines had been considered products of human reason, a deeper
examination of the historical development of moral ideas reveals a more complex origin. It
suggests that moral commands do not solely stem from the individual’s rational autonomy.
Instead, they arise from the collective efforts of organized groups striving to establish
acceptable conditions for social coexistence. This historical context underscores how moral
principles have not only influenced but have also been transformed into legal rules over time,
shaping the fabric of legal systems across cultures.

Relationship between law and morality: A perspective of different

schools

The relationship between law and morality has evolved significantly throughout history. In the
earliest stages of human society, there was no clear distinction between the two; they were seen
as one and the same. Ancient Hindu jurists exemplified this unity, believing that moral
principles derived from religion or individual conscience. For them, the law was inherently
linked to moral values, reflecting a societal consensus on right and wrong.
However, this perspective shifted dramatically during the Post-Reformation period in Europe.
Thinkers of that era began to assert that law and morality were distinct and separate domains.
They argued that the authority of law comes from the state rather than from moral
considerations. This marked a significant departure from earlier views, suggesting that legal
systems could operate independently of ethical principles.

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw a resurgence of natural law theories, which
reconnected law with moral values. Philosophers argued that laws should reflect universal
moral principles, leading to a renewed emphasis on the ethical dimensions of legal frameworks.
This interplay between law and morality was influential, with many advocating that laws ought
to embody justice and ethical norms.

Yet, by the nineteenth century, the landscape shifted once more under the powerful influence
of analytical positivism. This school of thought focused exclusively on legal norms, effectively
sidelining moral considerations from the study of law. According to analytical positivists, law
should be understood as a system of rules established by sovereign authority, devoid of moral
implications. In this context, Immanuel Kant further distinguished law from morality,
suggesting that while both are important, they operate within separate realms.

Historical jurists further contributed to this separation by excluding ethical considerations from
jurisprudence. They dismissed any creative role for judges or lawmakers in shaping the law,
insisting instead that laws must conform to established customs rather than moral principles.
The universal ideals that positive law should adhere to were seen as grounded in historical
practice, discovered through study rather than through moral reasoning. As a result, morality
was largely viewed as outside the scope of legal interpretation and application.

Despite this, it can be argued that even long-standing customs should not contradict moral
values. A legal system that disregards ethics risks becoming unjust and disconnected from the
societal values it is meant to uphold.
In the twentieth century, there was a revival of natural law theories, leading to new perspectives
on legal precepts. These theories emphasized that the ultimate goal of law should be the
realization of moral values. This resurgence reflects an ongoing debate about the necessary
relationship between law and morality, suggesting that while the two may be distinct, they
remain inextricably linked.

Separation of Law and Morality

Analytical jurisprudence represents a significant departure from philosophy and ethics,

emphasizing the independence of law from moral or ethical considerations. The analytical
jurists, such as David Hume and John Austin, rejected the idea that law should be intertwined
with moral philosophy. Hume, for instance, dismissed natural law theory and insisted on the
separation of law from morals. He argued that law should be studied in isolation from ethical
concerns, which became a hallmark of the analytical approach. This separation signaled a break
from earlier traditions that saw law as closely tied to ethical principles.

Jeremy Bentham further developed this view by basing his legal philosophy on the principle
of utility, where pleasure and pain were seen as the ultimate criteria for judging laws. Bentham's
utilitarian approach led him to dismiss the relevance of morality in legal discussions, as he
viewed justice as secondary to the greater goal of utility. For Bentham, laws were justified not
by their adherence to moral standards but by their ability to produce the greatest happiness for
the greatest number of people. As a result, considerations of morality were deliberately
excluded from his conception of law.

J.S. Mill, another prominent utilitarian thinker, followed in Bentham’s footsteps, arguing that
justice should be understood through the lens of utility. He maintained that the standard of
justice must be grounded in the consequences it produces, specifically how it contributes to
overall well-being.
John Austin, a key figure in analytical jurisprudence, is best known for his sharp criticism of
those who incorporated moral reasoning into legal decisions. Austin notably criticized Lord
Mansfield for introducing moral considerations into judicial decisions. He argued for a strict
separation of law from ethics, asserting that jurisprudence should be analyzed without reference
to moral principles. Nevertheless, Austin acknowledged that moral influences could play a role
in the creation of laws. Yet, within his framework for defining the nature of law, there was no
room for moral elements.

Interestingly, H.L.A. Hart, a leading legal positivist, generally excluded morality from his
definition of law. However, Hart did recognize the importance of shared morality in
maintaining social cohesion, acknowledging that some degree of morality is essential for any
society to function. For example, he argued that private moral behavior, such as sexual conduct
between married couples, is not within the purview of the law, but when such acts occur in
public, they rightly become a concern of law, as they could offend public sensibilities. This
demonstrates Hart’s nuanced approach to the intersection of law and morality—he maintained
the separation between the two but conceded that in some cases, law must reflect societal
values.

Ronald Dworkin, a critic of Hart's positivism, challenged Hart's exclusion of morality from
law. He argued that law and morality cannot be entirely separated and that moral principles
should guide judicial interpretation. On the other hand, Lord Devlin defended the view that law
should uphold a minimum standard of morality. According to Devlin, certain moral ideas are
essential to the survival of a society, and law must preserve these ideas to maintain social order.

Fuller introduced another layer to the debate by emphasizing the role of morality in the
governance of law. For Fuller, law was not simply a set of rules but an enterprise aimed at
regulating human conduct, which inherently involved moral considerations. He argued that
good law must incorporate both external and internal morality, with internal morality serving
as the procedural framework necessary for just legal systems. According to Fuller, it is
impossible to understand law without considering its ethical foundations, as the two are deeply
interconnected.
The Impact of Morality on Law-Making in the Indian Context

The values cherished by India are deeply embedded in its Constitution, particularly through the
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. These include core principles
such as equality before the law, freedom of speech, and religious liberty, reflecting not only the
ideals prized by Indian society but also those embraced by democratic societies around the
world. These values are deeply rooted in India's cultural heritage, notably reflected in the Vedas
and great epics. Justice Krishna Iyer observed that India's past glory cannot be regained unless
morality is integrated into the modern legal system. Morality, much like the soul, provides
strength to the law, fostering a voluntary adherence to legal norms.

In ancient Hindu law, the concept of ‘Sadachar’ (good conduct) held significant importance,
embodying principles of right and wrong and promoting righteous living, honesty, and virtue.
Customs, however, had to align with morality, justice, and public policy. For instance, in
‘Madhura Naikin v. Esu Naikin’, the Bombay High Court held that the adoption of girls for
immoral purposes was illegal. Similarly, customs permitting divorce or marriage under
immoral circumstances, such as deserting one's husband without consent or marrying a
daughter's daughter, were deemed immoral and contrary to public policy.

Modern law, however, seems to focus more on legal rights and obligations, often neglecting
moral values. This lack of attention to ethical standards raises concerns, as societies that fail to
uphold decency and morality are bound to decline. Recognizing this, the Indian Constitution
includes provisions to safeguard morality, as seen in Article 19(2), which allows for restrictions
on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of "decency and morality." This provision
is designed to prevent the misuse of free speech in ways that could harm public morals.

In ‘Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra’, the Supreme Court applied the Hicklin test to
uphold the constitutionality of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, which regulates obscenity.
This indicates that the framers of the Constitution did not ignore the moral dimension of the
law. Courts are expected to safeguard ethical values by intervening when laws created by the
legislature are tainted by immorality. The judiciary has a vital role in preserving the moral
fabric of society, acting as a check on the legislature and executive when their actions violate
public morals.

In ‘Mr. 'X' v. Hospital 'Z'’, the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between individual rights
and public morality. Although the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
the Constitution, it is not absolute. The court held that restrictions could be imposed on privacy
to protect health or public morals, particularly in cases where competing rights must be
balanced. Similarly, in ‘T.K. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu’, the Supreme Court ruled that
when individual rights conflict with the larger interests of society, individual freedoms must
yield to the greater good, emphasizing the importance of public interest in legal decisions.

However, the law is not without its shortcomings when it comes to morality. For example, a
debt that is barred by time may be legally irrecoverable, even though this may be considered
immoral. Similarly, legislation like the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities & Exemptions) Act,
1981, which granted exemptions to tax evaders while placing burdens on honest taxpayers, was
seen as morally questionable. In the Bearer Bonds case, the petitioners argued that laws lacking
a moral foundation are invalid. Despite this, the Supreme Court upheld the Act, viewing it as
beneficial for the national economy by helping to uncover black money.

The judiciary has often played a role in shaping policy on critical moral and ethical issues. For
instance, in cases involving environmental concerns, such as the pollution around the Taj Mahal
and air pollution in Delhi, the Supreme Court has taken proactive steps to address these issues.
Similarly, the court's rulings on matters like banning smoking in public places and protecting
women from workplace harassment were grounded in a moral understanding of human rights
and public welfare.

Despite these efforts, the judiciary has sometimes overlooked the moral rights of the poor,
particularly in cases involving large-scale development projects. For example, in ‘Narmada
Bachao Andolan v. Union of India’, the court prioritized development over environmental
concerns. Similarly, in ‘P.A. Inamdar v. Maharashtra’, the court's ruling against the quota
system in private educational institutions was seen as a setback for social justice. These
decisions reflect a shift in judicial thinking, possibly influenced by the government's evolving
economic policies, raising questions about the relevance of social justice in a market-driven
economy.

Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that law and morality serve as two fundamental
agencies of social control. Morality and ethical principles have always influenced both
legislative and judicial law-making, despite attempts to separate the two. The notion of
separating law from morality has never fully extended to the process of law-making. As Justice
Holmes, a proponent of the separation doctrine, aptly remarked, "the law is the witness and
external deposit of our moral life." This indicates that moral considerations continue to shape
and influence legal rules. While morality is indispensable in law-making, it is argued that the
morality upheld by the courts is often higher than that of politicians. This is primarily because
legislation is typically driven by the will of politicians, who may be swayed by the passions
and popular sentiments of the moment.

For instance, the "cash for query" scandal in India raised significant questions about the
morality and integrity of the country's political system. Additionally, the involvement of
legislators in cases of human trafficking, as reported in the media, casts further doubt on their
ethical standards. In contrast, judicial law is made within the calm and objective environment
of the courts, by individuals trained to administer justice impartially. As a result, judicial
decisions tend to be more equitable and grounded in fairness than statutory law, which is often
influenced by political agendas. The judiciary has frequently condemned unjust, tyrannical,
and unethical statutes.

The impeachment motion against Justice Ramaswamy, where parliamentarians abstained from
voting to prevent his condemnation, is a striking example of how ethical values can be
disregarded in the political arena. In contrast, the judiciary upholds principles of justice, equity,
good faith, and conscience, allowing morality to permeate the fabric of the law. It is these moral
values that encourage voluntary obedience to the law, beyond mere legal sanctions.

When societal morals shift, laws often follow suit, reflecting changes in ethical standards. In
this sense, morality plays a role in perfecting the law. Law can be viewed as a branch of
morality, both rooted in the same ethical foundation. Ethics forms the common basis for both
law and morality. This is evident in key global frameworks such as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the United Nations Charter, principles of international law, humanitarian law,
and the Nuremberg principles, all of which are rich in moral and ethical values that continue to
influence legal systems worldwide.
References :

• 1. Dworkin, R. (1977). ‘Taking rights seriously’. Harvard University Press.

• 2. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). ‘The concept of law’ (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

• 3. Kelsen, H. (1991). ‘Pure theory of law’ (B. Simons, Trans.). University of

California Press. (Original work published 1934)

• 4. Raz, J. (1986). ‘The authority of law: Essays on law and morality’. Oxford
University Press.