The concept of Constitutional Morality that is rooted in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision has emerged to be an often contested and pivotal doctrine in the jurisprudence of the Indian Constitution. The concept broadly emphasizes adhering to the core Constitutional principles like liberty, fraternity, equality and justice over populist sentiments or majoritarianism. The judicial interpretation of the concept has evolved with considerable divUrsity that has at times led to contradictory or contrasting applications by the various benches of High Courts and the Supreme Court. In cases like Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India the concept was invoked to challenge the populist sentiments and expand individual rights. Conversely, in a few cases a restrained or deferential stance was adopted by the courts. This diversity in the interpretation of the concept raises critical questions about subjectivity of the concept and judicial over-reach. Some critics are of the opinion that an expansive and undefined use of the concept may blur the lines between moral policing and judicial reasoning. On the other hand, the proponents assert that it is necessary to enable social transformation and to uphold the constitutional ethos. The legal implications of the divergent interpretations are profound because it has a direct bearing on the civil liberties, policy and the balance between the three organs, legislative, executive and judiciary. This commentary addresses how the concept of Constitutional Morality, though a powerful interpretative tool, requires consistent jurisprudential clarity to prevent arbitrariness and to ensure that it remains anchored in the constitutional values, text and democratic accountability.