This article is written by Atishay Jain, a former UPSC aspirant and a key member of the ApniLaw team, combining his knowledge of the Constitution with a strong interest in public law. For any personal queries or suggestions, feel free to reach out to us through our official channel
What Is Article 143 Of The Indian Constitution
- Article 143 gives the President the authority to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on key issues. This can include questions of law or fact that are important to the public.
- Article 143(1): Discretionary Consultation. The President can refer a legal or factual question to the Supreme Court. This applies if the matter has arisen or is likely to arise and holds public importance. The Supreme Court may choose to give its opinion or decline the reference.
- Article 143(2): Mandatory Opinion on Certain Disputes. The President can refer disputes related to pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, or similar instruments. In such cases, the Supreme Court must give its opinion after holding a hearing.
- The Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 is not legally binding. The President may accept or reject the advice.
- Article 143 does not allow the President to appeal or revise Supreme Court judgments. It serves only a consultative role and does not function as an appellate provision.
Can the Supreme Court of India refuse to answer a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution
Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. However, the Supreme Court has the discretion to decline such a reference. This discretion is evident in the use of the word “may” in the Article, indicating that the Court is not obligated to provide an opinion.
The Supreme Court may refuse to answer a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) on several grounds:
- Settled Matters: If the question has already been decided by the Court in a previous judgment.
- Vague or Hypothetical Questions: If the questions are too broad, abstract, or hypothetical in nature.
- Political Nature: If the issues are purely political and not justiciable.
- Attempt to Review Judicial Decisions: If the reference is seen as an attempt to review or overturn an existing Supreme Court decision, which is not permissible via Article 143.
- Lack of Constitutional Relevance: If the issues lack constitutional relevance or the opinion would serve no useful purpose.
Notable Cases Of Refusal
- Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Reference (1993): The Supreme Court declined to answer the Presidential Reference concerning the existence of a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, stating that the question was unnecessary and not conducive to the resolution of the dispute.
- Kashmir Resettlement Bill Reference: The Court refused to answer the reference related to the Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement Bill, 1980, as the matter was already under judicial consideration.
Why Has President Murmu Invoked Article 143 Recently?
In a rare constitutional move, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 critical legal questions. The reference primarily challenges the apex court’s recent ruling that imposed timelines on Governors and the President for acting on bills passed by state legislatures.
The reference comes in response to the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. That verdict directed Governors and the President to act within a “reasonable timeframe” when granting or withholding assent under Articles 200 and 201. President Murmu’s move questions the judicial authority to enforce such deadlines, arguing that the Constitution does not prescribe fixed timelines.
The President has referred the following constitutional queries to the Supreme Court:
- Can the judiciary impose a timeline for Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201?
- Is the Governor constitutionally bound to act only on the advice of the Council of Ministers?
- Can courts intervene in the discretionary powers of Governors?
- Are the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 extendable to legislative assent matters?
- Is judicial review applicable to delays in granting assent?
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned the move, calling it an attempt to weaken the role of non-BJP state governments. He accused the Union Government of trying to paralyze state legislatures and bypass federal principles through judicial channels.
The Presidential Reference has triggered a major legal debate. Experts say the case could redefine the boundaries between the judiciary, executive, and legislature. While Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion, it is advisory and non-binding. However, its interpretation could have a lasting impact on how Governors exercise their powers in a federal democracy.
Landmark Cases Where Article 143 Was Invoked by the Presidents of India
- Berubari Union Case (1960). The Court clarified that transferring Indian territory like Berubari to another country requires a constitutional amendment.
- Sea Customs Act Reference (1964). The Court interpreted the scope of parliamentary powers in relation to customs duties.
- State Legislatures’ Privileges (1965). This reference clarified the limits of privileges and immunities enjoyed by state legislatures.
- Presidential Election Case (1974). The Court addressed constitutional concerns around the conduct and legality of presidential polls.
- Special Courts Bill (1978). The reference tested the validity of establishing special courts for specific categories of offenses.
- Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993). The President sought the Court’s opinion on the powers of tribunals under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act.
- Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Case (1993). This was the only factual question ever referred under Article 143. The Court declined to answer if a Hindu temple existed before the Babri Masjid.
- Judges Appointment Reference (1998). The Court gave detailed guidelines on the procedure for appointing judges to the higher judiciary.
- Gujarat Assembly Elections (2002). This reference dealt with constitutional issues surrounding elections in Gujarat post-riots.
- Natural Resources Allocation Case (2012). The reference followed the 2G scam and clarified the legal principles behind allocating natural resources.
- Punjab River Water Agreements Case (2017). The President sought the Supreme Court’s view on the validity of Punjab’s decision to terminate water-sharing agreements.
- Governor’s Assent Powers Reference (2024–25). In a recent development, President Droupadi Murmu asked the Court to clarify the powers of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, following a verdict that imposed timelines for assent.
Conclusion
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution plays a vital role in maintaining constitutional balance and guiding governance. It empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on legal or constitutional matters of public importance. Though the Court’s opinion is not binding, it carries significant weight and helps avoid legal uncertainties in crucial decisions.
