This paper shows how a growing sense of justice among ordinary people forms a complex yet coherent framework of harmonious construction that ties modern Corporate Governance to the Indian Constitution. It firmly contends that the sword of Damocles in the Indian Constitution, a powerful means of piercing the corporate veil in major corporate governance failures, is inconsistent with Articles 14, 19 and 21, and is therefore 'not' fair, just, reasonable, fundamentally right and non-Arbitrary. In other words, mala fide intentions must override corporate governance norms to preserve the conscience of the Preamble's sanctity within the Constitution of India; otherwise, the exact opposite will be treated as a corporate governance statute or policy under Article 13(2) and the Doctrine of Severability, as curtailing public policy and posing a major threat that causes gross irritation within the lines of natural justice. It broadly surveys these substantive statutes as one manifesto of 'how': the SEBI Act, the Competition Act, the Income Tax Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) all fit the Indian Constitution's provisions on the substantive law of economic regulation, which seeks to fulfil the state's mandate under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), Article 39(b) and (c), to stop wealth from concentrating in a few hands. That policy is ultimately inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights to Equality and to Freedom of Trade and Commerce in Part III of the Constitution of India. By exposing glaring corporate governance failures, this study shows how routinely enforcement agencies upgrade de minimis procedural and disclosure defaults into white-collar crimes, peeling away the cosy veil of procedural double jeopardy in corporate law matters and thereby violating Article 14's ban on Arbitrariness, Article 19(1)(g)'s Right to Trade and Commerce, Article 20(3)'s protection against self-Incrimination, and the substantive due process protection during searches, seizures and attachments under Article 21. This study closes by proposing three novel statutory remedies: 1. Adoption of the "Lead Regulator Doctrine"; 2. Implementation of a Protected Foreign Quote that blocks criminal asset freezes by regulators until the underlying disputes are resolved; and 3. "Proportionality Audits" of new norms notified by SEBI. In the end, this study argues that market governance and freedoms are not mutually exclusive but are both essential pillars of a healthy economy, and it therefore advocates their harmonious coexistence as two sides of the same coin.