INTRODUCTION
The Indian Constitution is a living example of our country’s fusion of culture, religion, and social expectations. The fact that it is the longest-written constitution in the world proves that in a pluralistic society like ours, it is natural to keep evolving. For eg: the problems that the drafting committee had in mind to be addressed during the making of our constitution in 1946-1950 were different than what the society of today observes only a certain extent of imagination is kept in the minds of people, a constitution is a supreme doctrine that guides any country but there remain certain problems that cannot be foreseen and are left out. These left-outs or omissions are the silences in the pages of this document that have come to be known as Constitutional Silences. But these silences are not blank.[1], they are as powerful as sounds. In this segment, we discuss how these Constitutional Silences impact the country’s legal system and the significance of interpreting them correctly.
EVOLUTION OF SILENCES
The Independence Era came with the integration of social, political, and economic expectations of the society As a result, the Indian Constitution derived its inspiration from several sources, primarily, The American Constitution, The Canadian Constitution, The Government of India Act, of 1935[2], the Ireland Constitution, and the Australian Constitution. It is modelled on the British Structure since India had to move forward with the princely states and the British units. But the additional challenge that it faces is the diversity it is accommodating and it is simply not possible for any evolving society to comprehend and list every detail regarding the rights, schedules, or parts of its constitution and when there are such lapses of any provision in it, the silences come and it falls into the ambit of interpretation, something which our constitutional fathers have expected because any written constitution cannot stand on its own, it needs to be patronized and nurtured at every stage of its existence.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
The duty of interpretation of such silences lies with the Courts, especially the Supreme Court which is the Apex judicial body, it is the judiciary that declares laws that are made by the legislative under Article 245[3] and it is also the judiciary that analyzes whether a case is of silence or it simply entails avoidance since it is the final interpreter of the provisions of the constitution, for if it is an unintentional lapse in the constitution, the courts need to assimilate independently and neutrally that why it was not incorporated but if there is an intentional omission, the judges need not be driven by independent passion because such treatment would lead to a subjective conclusion which will not be right, but rather an objective criteria to the situation will help in interpreting what the constitution sought to deliver. It is not always the case that silences are left out mistakenly[4], it is sometimes not incorporated for avoidance, and the law should not give effect to it. The role of courts in understanding whether any case falls in the domain of silence or not is also crucial because it makes scope for correction and extension. In a society like ours, the values and norms are changing so rapidly that every aspect of our lives is to be evaluated differently from the one that existed back in the 1950s. The Silences have served as an influence on the Indian legal framework and many initiatives are being taken to fill in this #. In the landmark case of Keshvananda Bharati v. Union of India,[5] the doctrine of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution was propounded. The basic structure doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended or abrogated by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment. Justice H.R Khanna[6] held that “Article 368[7] can amend the basic structure of the constitution. Its provisions may be altered, amended, or repealed but the Constitution cannot be abrogated. This case highlighted the filling of the silence on the basic structure of the constitution by the court. Concerning independent provisions of our constitution, there have been several cases where the courts have interpreted what the provision could say, one such example was Article 21[8] which guarantees the fundamental right to ‘Life and Liberty’, the scope of the term is ever-expanding and could interpret in several ways like in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipality[9] which extended its ambit and declared that Right to life does not mean mere animal existence, it is the right to live in a dignified manner. It was stated that Article 21[10] is a bundle of rights required to live dignifiedly, such as the right to privacy, health, education, shelter, etc. Similarly, in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[11], the constitutional silence on personal liberty under Article 21 was highlighted and the court propounded that a citizen’s liberty covers a variety of rights that should be interpreted liberally if the evolution of the constitution is to be made. There have been cases where the courts felt the need to be silenced and closed the doors for any further interpretation like Manoj Narula v. Union of India[12] which raised questions on the appointment of ministers under Articles 75[13] and 164[14]and whether the ministers with a criminal antecedent should be appointed and whether it contrasted with the right of a citizen to good governance. The Supreme Court held in this case that some silences in the constitution are left for experience, and it is not wise for the courts to take away the powers of the Prime minister or the chief minister to advise as these decisions should be left to them. The main aim of our judiciary is to maintain a balance between being responsible for interpretation and avoiding despotism. The Judicial interpretation of the president’s rule in states as non-absolute in the case of S.R Bommai v. Union of India[15] also laid out the rule of neutral interpretation.
CONCLUSION
A Handwritten exhaustive constitution like ours. No constitution in this world is complete or perfect, it is through these silences that there is the possibility of evolution and liberal interpretation[16]. There is no way we can achieve everything in a single timeline, it is the role of the judiciary to ensure that these silences or abeyances are interpreted correctly and do not result in Judicial legislation. The thin line between making laws and declaring laws shall never be crossed for it is not required. The Court of Law must declare laws and assimilate in isolation why a particular thing is not added or why a particular thing has to be removed. Laws are not artefacts of the arbitrary will of the supreme lawgiver, it is instead an opportunity left by the makers for the successors to patronize and accommodate the dynamics of the society into it. It is necessary to fill in the gaps in the constitution and make it as organic as possible.
Author(s) Name: Angel Malik (Dewan Law College, Meerut)
References:
[1] Kritika, “The loudness in Constitutional Silences” https://heinonline.org/ (Accessed 23 February 2025)
[2] THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 (26 Geo. V &1 Edw. VIII Ch. 2)
[3] Draft Article 216 (Article 245, Constitution of India, 1950),13th June,1949.
[4] Fali S. Nariman, “The Silences in Our Constitutional Law” (2005)
[5]Kesvananda Bharati v. Union of India [1973], AIR 1973 SC 1461
[6] Keshvananda Case judgement dated 24 April 1973
[7] Article 368, August 11, 1971
[8] Article 21 ( Right to Life and Liberty)
[9] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipality [1960], Supp. (2) S.C.R. 51
[10] Supra Note 9
[11] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978],1978 SCR (2) 621.
[12] Manoj Narula v. Union of India [2014], 9 S.C.R. 965
[13] Article 75(1) -The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
[14] Article 164(1)- (1) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister
[15] S.R.Bommai [1994] 3 SCC 1
[16] Supra Note 1
