[Slide: Introduction]

The relationship between law and morality has a profound effect on society. Both can strengthen social
bonds, but also cause friction when they diverge. We often assume they go hand in hand, but many times,
they conflict. For instance, people may face situations where obeying the law means going against their
personal sense of what is right.​
In earlier times, humans were seen as primitive beings. But over time, we recognized them as members of a
society, each carrying their own moral compass. This makes it tricky when legal provisions seem to violate
those personal or cultural morals.​
In India, dharma—especially in Hinduism—and hakum in Islamic traditions acted as early guiding principles.
These weren't just religious rules; they were the framework through which people understood their duties,
ethics, and even laws.​
As India modernized, we saw a transition from these traditional frameworks to formal law influenced by
British systems. Yet morality—whether personal, societal, or religious—remains central to how law is
interpreted and practiced.

[Slide: Law and Morality in Jurisprudence]

Let’s now look at the concepts of law and morality from a jurisprudential perspective.​
Law is often seen as a system of rules backed by sanctions and enforced by a sovereign authority. It’s
systematic and enforceable. Morality, on the other hand, is more subjective. It consists of shared values
about right and wrong, and it’s not legally enforceable in the same way.​
While law can compel obedience, morality appeals to conscience. Yet, over time, moral norms have
influenced laws, and vice versa. The ongoing debate is whether laws should always reflect society’s moral
standards—or whether they should operate independently to ensure justice, equality, and rights for all, even
unpopular minorities.

[Slide: Theoretical Framework – Classical Theories]

Classical legal theory provides two major perspectives:

1.​ Natural Law Theory: This theory argues that law and morality are inherently linked. Thinkers like
Aquinas believed that for a law to be valid, it must align with moral principles. If a law is unjust, it's not
truly a law in the moral sense.​

2.​ Legal Positivism: In contrast, legal positivists like H.L.A. Hart argue that law and morality are
separate. A law is valid not because it is moral, but because it is created through a recognized legal
process.

[Slide: Hart-Devlin Debate]

The famous Hart-Devlin debate centers on whether the law should enforce morality.​
Devlin argued that society has the right to preserve its moral fabric, and if certain behaviors—even in
private—offend public morality, the state can criminalize them.​
Hart opposed this, emphasizing that the law should not interfere in private moral choices unless they harm
others. He defended individual liberty and warned against using law as a tool for moral policing.​
This debate remains highly relevant in today's India, especially with discussions around freedom of speech,
LGBTQ+ rights, and content creation.
[Slide: Evolution in India – Morality and Constitution]

India’s legal system evolved from ancient spiritual codes like dharma to codified law. Even the Constitution of
India reflects moral values—like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—in its Preamble.​
However, morality in India isn’t singular. There’s religious morality, cultural morality, and now, a newer idea:
constitutional morality.​
Public morality might oppose same-sex relationships, but constitutional morality upholds dignity, privacy, and
equality—values the Supreme Court has used in landmark rulings like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.

[Slide: Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Morality]

Judicial interpretation has played a crucial role in developing the idea of constitutional morality. The courts
have repeatedly emphasized that governance must be based not just on tradition or majority opinion, but on
the principles embedded in the Constitution.​
Judges have cited constitutional morality in cases related to freedom of expression, privacy, gender equality,
and even the right to marry a person of one’s choice. This reflects a shift from public morality—which can be
oppressive—to a rights-based framework.

1. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)

In this landmark case, the Delhi High Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent
that it criminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults in private. The Court emphasized the
difference between popular morality and constitutional morality, stating that public disapproval of a private act
could not justify curtailing fundamental rights such as dignity, privacy, and equality under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The judges observed that morality rooted in social disapproval is subjective and cannot form the
basis for criminalization. This judgment marked a progressive step where the court placed constitutional
principles above prevailing moral standards, thereby protecting individual freedoms.

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

The Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed the principles laid down in the Naz Foundation judgment after it
was overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation. The five-judge bench unanimously
decriminalized consensual same-sex relations among adults, declaring that sexual orientation is an essential
attribute of privacy and identity. The Court elaborated on the doctrine of constitutional morality, stating that it
goes beyond societal morality and includes values such as inclusiveness, liberty, and human dignity. The
judgment explicitly warned against using majoritarian morality as a legal yardstick and reaffirmed the
judiciary’s duty to uphold the Constitution even if public opinion is resistant to change.

3. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018)

This case dealt with the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple in
Kerala. The Supreme Court ruled by a 4:1 majority that the custom was unconstitutional as it violated Articles
14, 15, 17, and 25. The Court observed that the practice was based on patriarchal morality and excluded
women in a manner inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality. It held that the term "morality"
in Article 25 must be interpreted as constitutional morality, not religious or traditional morality. This judgment
reinforced that religious freedom cannot override gender equality and that constitutional values must prevail
in a secular legal framework.
[Slide: Contemporary Controversies – Ranveer Allahbadia & AIB Roast]

Let us now discuss real-world examples.

The Ranveer Allahbadia case sparked outrage over content that many claimed was "immoral" or offensive.
Similarly, the AIB Roast drew sharp criticism for vulgarity and hurting cultural sentiments.​
But should such expressions be censored by law? Or should creators have the right to offend, provoke, and
challenge norms? These controversies force us to confront the blurry line between moral outrage and legal
limits.​
Through such cases, we see the judiciary’s challenge—upholding freedom while respecting public
sentiment.

Ranveer Allahbadia Case (BeerBiceps Podcast, 2025)

The Ranveer Allahbadia case emerged as a significant contemporary legal controversy involving the
intersection of digital content, public morality, and constitutional freedoms. Allahbadia, a popular
YouTuber and podcast host known as "BeerBiceps," was accused of spreading obscene and offensive
content in one of his subscriber-only podcast episodes. Several FIRs were lodged under Sections 292 and
295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, claiming the content was sexually explicit and hurt religious
sentiments. The viral nature of a short clipped segment on social media, taken out of its subscription-only
context, led to widespread public outrage. However, during the Supreme Court hearing, his counsel argued
that the content was meant only for consenting adult subscribers and did not meet the legal threshold for
obscenity or incitement. The Court granted interim protection from arrest but rebuked Allahbadia for making
"filthy and perverted" remarks, stating that content creators should behave responsibly.

This case became a crucial test for freedom of speech in the age of digital media, where moral
sentiments often dictate public discourse. Unlike earlier judgments that invoked constitutional morality to
expand rights, this case raised concerns about the judiciary veering towards moral paternalism. It
highlighted the tension between legal positivism—which supports content legality based on existing
laws—and natural law or moralist approaches, which seek to regulate expression based on societal
standards. While Allahbadia’s content may have been distasteful to many, it did not cause direct harm,
prompting legal scholars to question whether bad taste alone should invite criminal sanctions. The case thus
underscores the urgent need to draw clearer lines between lawful yet controversial speech and genuine
legal wrongdoing, especially as India navigates the complexities of free expression in a morally diverse
society.

In 2015, comedians Tanmay Bhat and the AIB (All India Bakchod) team hosted a celebrity roast featuring
Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor, filled with sexually explicit jokes and adult humour. The event, uploaded to
YouTube, quickly went viral and triggered widespread backlash. Several FIRs were filed under IPC Sections
292 (obscenity), 294 (obscene acts in public), 509 (insulting modesty of a woman), and 120B (criminal
conspiracy). Many religious and cultural groups alleged that the content was offensive to Indian values and
public morality, demanding legal action against the comedians and even the audience members. Under
intense public and media scrutiny, AIB eventually took down the video and issued public apologies.

Legally, the case raised important questions about the extent to which freedom of expression can
accommodate satire, vulgarity, and social criticism in a democratic society. While the content was viewed as
offensive by many, there was no clear harm or incitement to violence, prompting legal scholars and free
speech advocates to argue that moral offence alone shouldn't result in criminal liability. Courts did not pursue
the case further, implicitly recognizing that in a pluralistic society, legal standards must be separated from
fluctuating public emotions. This case reflected H.L.A. Hart’s view that unpopular or distasteful speech must
still be protected unless it causes actual harm—preserving the constitutional space for humour, dissent, and
artistic freedom.

[Slide: Conclusion]

In conclusion, law and morality are deeply interconnected, but not identical. Where law ensures order and
justice, morality guides personal conduct. Sometimes they align, sometimes they clash.​
The Indian judiciary today stands at the crossroads of public and constitutional morality. Its task is to ensure
that the law remains rooted in constitutional values, even if public morality resists change.​
Through classical theories, philosophical debates, and modern controversies, this paper highlights the
ongoing tension—and the importance of judicial wisdom in maintaining balance.