During hearings in April, the Indian government urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine of constitutional morality, arguing it has no basis in the Constitution and should not guide judicial decision-making. The court has yet to issue its judgment.
For years, the Supreme Court has relied on the constitutional morality doctrine to treat the Constitution as a living document promising justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity must be applied to a changing society rather than remain frozen in the era in which it was written.
If the Supreme Court were ultimately to narrow or reject the doctrine, judgments that have relied on constitutional morality, including the landmark Navtej Singh Johar ruling, could come under renewed scrutiny. That 2018 decision decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.
In 2026, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing as the central government's representative in another case, referred to the Navtej Singh Johar ruling as "not a good law."
Legal experts have argued that the implications extend beyond LGBTQ+ rights, with one observer warning that asking the Supreme Court to treat the Navtej Singh Johar reasoning as "not good law" raises broader questions about India's commitment to constitutional rights and could affect how its constitutional democracy is perceived internationally.
The case also intersects with a separate legislative development. An advisory committee the Supreme Court created, led by former Delhi High Court Justice Asha Menon, has urged the government to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. The panel said the proposal to deny self-identification of gender is inconsistent with the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India ruling.
India's LGBTQ+ community has found renewed hope in the election of Menaka Guruswamy — a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, as the country's first openly LGBTQ+ MP. Guruswamy was declared elected unopposed to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, on March 9, representing West Bengal.
For diversity, equity, and inclusion professionals, employment lawyers, and HR leaders operating across India or with Indian subsidiaries, the pending ruling carries direct relevance. A narrowing of constitutional morality could affect protections against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and may signal shifts in how Indian courts interpret fundamental rights more broadly.
