Majoritarian Interpretations Of Constitutional Silences

In “Majoritarian Interpretations of Constitutional Silences”, Himanshi Yadav and Sinchan Chatterjee contend that constitutional silences in India have increasingly become sites of majoritarian appropriation, exploited by both the executive and judiciary to consolidate ideological dominance rather than advance constitutional values. The authors show how the executive has weaponised procedural silences through ordinance repromulgation, delayed appointments, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), and vague security laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), to marginalise minorities and dissent. The authors claim that judiciary is shown to be strategically selective by being progressive in politically insulated cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, but deferential where majoritarian religious or nationalist identities are at stake, as in Ayodhya verdict and the pending CAA challenges. The authors conclude that constitutional silence is filled not by principle but by power, proposing a framework rooted in proportionality, constitutional morality, and civil society engagement to restore the Constitution’s counter-majoritarian function.

CALJ Special Issue_Yadav_Chatterjee.pdf

Download PDF • 801KB