Morality and Reasoning: An Analysis of Judicial Going Beyond the Delegation

This article discusses the historic relationship between ‘morality and reasoning’. It is specifically more about judicial reasoning. At the beginning, this article defines ‘morality’ and ‘reasoning’. It shows how and why reasoning ought not to be dictated in terms of religious morality. A state or the states having their own diversities must have to get rid of religious fundamentalism so far as making the law and its working goes on. It is so as to insure and ensure that constitutionalism does not fall prey to the servitude dominated and imposed by precedents, racial and religious traditions, customs and it is so as to let reasoning evolve independent of any kind of envelopment. This article, for that purpose, studies how a former Chief justice of the Supreme Court reflects on his papal belief being a dominant force in writing his judgement in one of the historic litigations which consequently did not give secularism its due share. Religious considerations in the interpretations of secular laws have caused irreparable damage to the very constitutional fabrics of the nation-states. Shah Bano judgement is an example. The judgements on the de-activation or abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India invites questions in regard to independence of judiciary. Studies show that on certain occasions, the judicial system going beyond the fixed as well as the implied delegation is not free from the politics of the day. Practices at large in the international communities, even though immoral, have vehemently coined the word ‘amoral’ which is neither moral nor immoral. When something done is illegal, it is said to be legitimate. So, amoral reasoning in the international political economy is considered as legitimate and the national judiciaries are shaped and educated accordingly.