Dr. Sayantani Bagchi contends that Indian courts engage with constitutional conventions not as free-standing enforceable claims but as instruments of broader constitutional inquiry, enforcing them only indirectly. Drawing on the Dicey’s distinction between law and convention, Ivor Jennings’ threepronged test, and the Constituent Assembly’s deliberate choice to leave certain constitutional spaces uncodified, the author argues that courts follow a three-stage analytical method

Senior Advocate V. Sudhish Pai contends that a constitution’s unwritten dimensions are as legally significant as its express provisions. Judicial interpretation is the primary mechanism through which these silences are given meaning. Drawing on Tribe, Frankfurter, Holmes, and Cardozo, Sr. Adv. Pai argues that what is left unsaid in a constitution is often as consequential as what is expressly stated. Using Tribe’s distinction between “door-opening” and “doorclosing” silences

Professor Shruti Bedi contends that India lacks a coherent doctrine for reviving statutes declared unconstitutional, creating an ambiguity that courts and legislators have inconsistently navigated. Drawing on the void ab initio doctrine and the doctrine of eclipse, the author argues that while Deep Chand v. State of U.P. and Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. firmly establish the validity of unconstitutional post-constitutional laws, the Supreme Court’s validation of the amended S

Dr. Manisha Mirdha contends that political parties, despite barely featuring in India’s constitutional text, are its most consequential informal architects. They shape constitutional meaning through legislation, executive action, judicial appointments, and amendments. Drawing on Foucault and Gandhian traditions of strategic silence, the author contends that constitutional gaps are not passive omissions but contested spaces where political parties exercise real normative power

Jwalika Balaji and Anshul Dalmia contend that the Indian Constitution’s silence on care is a consequential doctrinal gap that leaves vulnerable populations without meaningful constitutional recourse. Drawing on feminist scholars including Gilligan, Noddings, Tronto, and Fredman, the authors argue that while Indian courts have invoked care across domains such as health, childcare, and household labour, they have done so derivatively by tethering care to Article 21 rather than

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 (Am