Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution of India
The Supreme Court of India occupies a unique and powerful position within the constitutional framework of India. Apart from functioning as the highest appellate court and guardian of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court also performs an advisory role under the Constitution. This advisory function reflects the close constitutional relationship between the judiciary and the executive while preserving the independence of judicial institutions.
Article 143 of the Constitution of India empowers the President of India to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on important questions of law or fact of public importance. This power is known as the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The advisory jurisdiction is distinctive because, unlike ordinary litigation, it does not arise from disputes between parties requiring adjudication. Instead, the Court provides legal and constitutional advice to the President on matters of national importance.
The advisory jurisdiction reflects the constitutional objective of ensuring that important legal and constitutional questions may receive authoritative judicial opinion before executive or legislative action is taken. Article 143 contains two clauses dealing with advisory jurisdiction. Article 143(1) provides that if at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court, the President may refer the question to the Court for consideration.
The Supreme Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report its opinion to the President. Thus, under Article 143(1), the President possesses discretionary authority to seek advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on matters of public importance. The questions referred may involve constitutional interpretation, legal disputes, historical controversies, federal issues, treaty obligations, or other matters affecting governance and national interest. Article 143(2) deals with disputes arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, sanad, or similar instruments.
This clause enables the President to refer disputes excluded from the Supreme Court’s ordinary jurisdiction under Article 131. However, Article 143(2) has rarely been invoked in practice. The advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is not mandatory. The President may choose whether or not to seek the Court’s opinion. Similarly, the Supreme Court may decline to answer a reference if it considers the question inappropriate, hypothetical, unnecessary, or incapable of judicial determination. This distinguishes advisory jurisdiction from ordinary judicial proceedings where courts are generally required to decide disputes properly brought before them.
The Supreme Court therefore retains discretion regarding acceptance and scope of advisory references.
The advisory jurisdiction is not intended for political consultation or policy-making. The Court gives opinions only on legal and constitutional questions requiring judicial interpretation. The advisory process generally begins when the Union Council of Ministers advises the President to make a reference to the Supreme Court.
The reference is then placed before the Court, usually before a Constitution Bench consisting of at least five judges because important constitutional issues are generally involved. The Court may invite arguments from the Attorney General of India, State governments, affected parties, experts, and intervenors. After hearing arguments, the Court delivers its advisory opinion, which is communicated to the President. One important constitutional question concerns whether the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court is binding upon the President.
Technically, advisory opinions under Article 143 are not binding because the provision merely states that the Court “may report” its opinion.However, in practice, advisory opinions carry enormous constitutional authority and are generally respected and followed by the executive and legislature.The advisory jurisdiction has enabled the Supreme Court to address several significant constitutional and national issues.One of the earliest and most important advisory opinions was delivered in the In re Delhi Laws Act.
In this case, the President sought the Court’s opinion regarding the constitutional validity of delegation of legislative powers.The Supreme Court clarified the limits of delegated legislation and established important constitutional principles regarding separation of powers.Another landmark reference arose in the In re Kerala Education Bill.The President referred questions relating to the constitutional validity of provisions affecting minority educational institutions.The Court examined the scope of minority rights under Article 30 and clarified constitutional protections available to minority institutions.
One of the most politically significant references involved the Special Reference No. 1 of 1964.This case concerned conflict between the judiciary and the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly regarding legislative privileges and judicial authority.The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion helped resolve a serious constitutional crisis and clarified the balance between legislative privileges and judicial review.Another important reference occurred in the In re Berubari Union.
The Court was asked whether Parliament could transfer Indian territory to Pakistan through executive action or whether constitutional amendment was necessary.The Supreme Court held that cession of territory required constitutional amendment under Article 368.This advisory opinion had major implications for constitutional law and international agreements.
The advisory jurisdiction was also invoked regarding the Ayodhya dispute in the Special Reference No. 1 of 1993.The President referred the question whether a Hindu temple existed at the disputed site before construction of Babri Masjid.The Supreme Court declined to answer the reference, observing that the question was unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances.This case demonstrated that the Court retains discretion to refuse advisory references where judicial determination may not serve constitutional purposes.
The advisory jurisdiction also played a role in matters relating to natural resources, judicial appointments, and constitutional interpretation.In the Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, the President sought clarification regarding the collegium system and judicial appointments.The Supreme Court expanded and clarified the collegium process, significantly influencing the structure of judicial appointments in India.The advisory jurisdiction serves several important constitutional purposes.
First, it enables the executive to obtain authoritative legal guidance on complex constitutional issues before taking action. Second, it helps prevent constitutional conflicts and litigation by clarifying legal uncertainties in advance. Third, it strengthens constitutional governance by ensuring that important public decisions receive judicial scrutiny and interpretation. Fourth, it promotes cooperation between constitutional organs while preserving separation of powers.
The advisory jurisdiction also reflects the unique role of the Supreme Court as both a judicial and constitutional institution. Unlike ordinary courts limited to adjudication of disputes, the Supreme Court under Article 143 contributes proactively to constitutional interpretation and governance. At the same time, the advisory jurisdiction has certain limitations and criticisms. Some critics argue that advisory opinions blur the distinction between judicial and executive functions because courts are asked to provide opinions outside adversarial litigation.
Others argue that hypothetical or political questions may draw the judiciary into controversial public debates. There are also concerns regarding absence of concrete factual disputes in advisory proceedings, which may affect quality of judicial analysis. However, supporters argue that advisory jurisdiction helps avoid constitutional crises and ensures informed governance on matters of national importance. The discretionary nature of Article 143 provides important safeguards.
The President decides whether reference is necessary, while the Supreme Court decides whether answering the reference is appropriate. This balance preserves judicial independence and constitutional propriety. The advisory jurisdiction differs from ordinary judicial decisions because it does not directly enforce rights or settle disputes between parties. Nevertheless, advisory opinions often have substantial persuasive and practical authority.
They influence legislation, executive decisions, constitutional interpretation, and future judicial precedents. The Supreme Court’s advisory opinions have therefore contributed significantly to development of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Article 143 also demonstrates the flexible and dynamic character of the Indian Constitution. The framers recognized that complex constitutional systems require mechanisms for consultation and interpretation beyond traditional litigation.
The advisory jurisdiction provides such a mechanism while respecting constitutional boundaries. In modern governance, questions involving federal relations, constitutional amendments, international agreements, electoral reforms, judicial independence, and public policy may require constitutional clarification. Article 143 allows the executive to seek judicial guidance in such matters before conflicts escalate. Despite occasional criticism, the advisory jurisdiction remains an important constitutional feature balancing governance, legality, and judicial wisdom.
In conclusion, Article 143 of the Constitution of India confers advisory jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court of India by empowering the President to seek its opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. The Court may provide advisory opinions on constitutional, legal, and federal issues affecting governance and national interest. Landmark advisory opinions such as In re Delhi Laws Act, In re Kerala Education Bill, and In re Berubari Union have significantly shaped Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Although advisory opinions are not strictly binding, they carry great constitutional authority and influence governance, legislation, and judicial interpretation. The advisory jurisdiction therefore remains an important mechanism for constitutional consultation, judicial guidance, and preservation of constitutional governance in India.
Leave a Reply