The Crisis of Consistency: Legal Reasoning and Selective Constitutionalism in the Indian Judiciary

Asst. Prof. Preeti Badola argues that legal reasoning is the normative foundation of judicial legitimacy and accountability, particularly in a common law system where precedents derive their binding force from their underlying rationale rather than their outcomes. The paper contends that the Supreme Court of India has displayed significant inconsistency in its reasoning by selectively invoking constitutional principles and departing from earlier precedents without adequately justifying such shifts. Through an examination of gender justice cases, including Vishaka, NALSA, Sakshi, Supriyo, Navtej Singh Johar, and Shayara Bano, the author demonstrates how the Court has inconsistently relied on international law, transformative constitutionalism, and its own precedents depending on the desired outcome. The paper concludes that while constitutional interpretation must evolve with changing social realities, departures from precedent must be accompanied by clear and reasoned justification to preserve judicial accountability, legal certainty, and the integrity of constitutional adjudication.

Access the article here:

CALJ_Volume X Issue I_Badola.pdf

Download PDF • 673KB