Introduction
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction. This power allows the President of India to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion. The question must involve law or fact. It must also be of public importance. The Court gives advice, not a judgment. This makes Article 143 different from normal cases decided by the Supreme Court.
This provision helps the government understand complex constitutional issues. It also helps prevent future disputes. The Court does not settle rights between parties here. It only clarifies the legal position.
Why Did the Constitution Include Advisory Jurisdiction?
The framers wanted expert legal guidance for the executive. They knew that some issues affect the whole nation. These issues may not reach the Court through regular cases. Article 143 fills this gap.
The idea came from Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Constitution expanded it. It allowed references on questions of fact along with questions of law. This made the advisory role broader and more useful.
How Does Article 143 Actually Work?
Article 143 has two clauses. Clause (1) gives discretionary power. The President may refer a question of law or fact of public importance. The Supreme Court may choose to answer or refuse. The word “may” shows this discretion.
Clause (2) works differently. It deals with matters excluded from the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Inter-state water disputes are a good example. In such cases, the Court must give its opinion. Here, the advisory role becomes compulsory.
Who Decides to Make a Presidential Reference?
The President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This follows Article 74 of the Constitution. Courts cannot question this advice. Article 74(2) clearly bars judicial inquiry into it.
This means the reference reflects the government’s view. Still, the Supreme Court stays independent. It examines the issue with full constitutional care.
Is the Supreme Court Bound to Answer Every Reference?
Under Clause (1), the Court has full freedom. It can refuse to answer. The Court often avoids questions that are political in nature. It also avoids issues without clear constitutional value.
In the Keshav Singh Reference case, the Court confirmed this discretion. In another reference from 1964, the Court refused to answer socio-political questions. These decisions protect judicial neutrality.
Are Advisory Opinions Binding Like Judgments?
Advisory opinions do not bind courts like regular judgments. Article 141 applies only to binding law declared by the Supreme Court. Advisory opinions fall outside this rule.
Still, these opinions carry great weight. Governments usually follow them. Courts also respect them in later cases. Their persuasive value remains very high.
Can the Supreme Court Enforce Its Advisory Opinion?
The Court cannot enforce an advisory opinion. Article 142 powers do not apply here. The opinion is not a decree or order.
However, the Court often follows a detailed hearing process. It hears all sides. It may even ask for assurances from the Attorney General. This ensures seriousness and respect for the opinion.
What Happens During the Hearing Process?
The Supreme Court treats advisory references carefully. It usually forms a Constitution Bench. This bench has at least five judges under Article 145(3).
The Court allows detailed arguments. It invites the Attorney General. It may also hear states or experts. The process looks similar to a normal case. This improves the quality of the opinion.
What Are the Most Important Advisory Cases?
The Berubari Union case of 1960 is a landmark. The Court clarified treaty implementation issues. It also explained that advisory opinions do not bind under Article 141.
The Keshav Singh Reference of 1965 is another case. It confirmed the Court’s power to refuse political questions. In 2025, the President made a major reference. It involved questions on the powers of Governors and the President over state bills. This followed the Tamil Nadu v. Governor case. It showed rising Centre–State tensions and revived interest in Article 143.
How Often Is Article 143 Used in Practice?
The government uses Article 143 very rarely. Since 1950, it has been used around a dozen times. This shows restraint by both the executive and the judiciary.
Each reference usually involves serious constitutional doubt. The sparing use preserves the Court’s role as a neutral advisor.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Article 143 strengthens constitutional governance. It prevents conflicts before they grow. It offers clarity on sensitive issues.
Even though opinions are not binding, they guide the nation. They reflect constitutional wisdom. This makes Article 143 a quiet but powerful feature of Indian constitutional law.
