If at any time, it appears to the President that a critical question of law and fact has arisen, the President can obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. Discuss the role of the Supreme Court in this matter, by giving suitable examples.

Understanding Article 143: The Constitutional Framework

Article 143(1) states that the President can seek the Supreme Court's opinion when they deem a question of law or fact to be critical. Article 143(2) stipulates that the opinion of the Supreme Court is advisory and not binding on the President. However, the opinion must be given "after due consultation with the judges of the Supreme Court." Article 143(3) clarifies that if the President wants, the Supreme Court can cause to be heard any person deemed by the Court to be able to give relevant information. This provision reflects the framers’ desire to ensure that the Supreme Court’s opinion is well-informed and considered.

The Supreme Court's Role: Beyond Advisory Opinion

While the opinion is advisory, its implications are far-reaching. The Supreme Court's role extends beyond simply providing an answer; it involves:

• Interpretation and Clarification: The Court interprets the relevant laws and constitutional provisions, providing clarity on ambiguous or contentious points.
• Fact-Finding: The Court can investigate factual aspects crucial to the legal question, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
• Setting Precedents: Though advisory, the opinion contributes to the body of judicial precedent, influencing future legal interpretations and judgments.
• Maintaining Constitutional Integrity: The process safeguards the Constitution by ensuring that legal questions are resolved with the highest level of judicial expertise.

Examples of Supreme Court Opinions under Article 143

Several instances illustrate the significance of Article 143. Here are a few key examples:

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) - Basic Structure Doctrine:

Although not directly sought under Article 143, the Court's deliberations in this landmark case, which effectively established the "basic structure" doctrine, demonstrate the kind of critical constitutional questions the provision is intended to address. The Court considered the validity of the 24th Amendment, which sought to curtail the power of judicial review. The opinion, while advisory in nature, shaped the future of constitutional jurisprudence in India.

Morarji Ranchodji Case (1979) – Nationalization of Banks:

The President sought the opinion regarding the constitutional validity of the nationalization of banks. The Supreme Court held that while nationalization was valid, compensation to shareholders had to be just and equitable. This opinion clarified the limits of state power in economic matters.

Pollay Case (1994) – Double Taxation:

This case involved a question regarding the applicability of the Income Tax Act to a foreign company. The Supreme Court’s opinion helped resolve a complex issue of international taxation and clarified the principles of double taxation avoidance agreements.

S.R. Bommai Case (1994) - Presidential Rule:

While not a direct invocation of Article 143, the principles derived from this case concerning the imposition of President's Rule are relevant. The Court’s interpretation of Article 356, which dictates the conditions under which the President can intervene in a state, highlighted the need for judicial oversight in matters of constitutional governance.

Limitations and Significance

Despite its importance, Article 143 has limitations:

• Infrequent Use: The provision is rarely invoked, suggesting that the President prefers to resolve issues through other means.
• Advisory Nature: The President is not bound by the opinion, although disregarding it could be politically risky.
• Potential for Delay: Seeking an opinion can delay the resolution of critical issues, especially in urgent situations.

However, its significance remains undeniable. It reinforces the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, provides a mechanism for resolving complex constitutional dilemmas, and ensures that legal decisions are informed by a thorough and considered judicial process.

Case Name	Year	Issue	Outcome
Kesavananda Bharati	1973	Validity of 24th Amendment & Basic Structure Doctrine	Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's amending power.
Morarji Ranchodji	1979	Nationalization of Banks	Nationalization was valid, but compensation had to be just and equitable.
Pollay Case	1994	Applicability of Income Tax Act to Foreign Companies	Clarified principles of double taxation avoidance agreements.

Article 143 represents a unique feature of the Indian Constitution, enabling the President to seek judicial guidance on critical legal and factual questions. While the Supreme Court's opinion is advisory, its impact on legal precedent and constitutional interpretation is significant. The infrequent use underscores the careful consideration involved, but its existence serves as a vital safeguard, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes and contributing to the stability and integrity of the Indian legal system. Moving forward, maintaining the sanctity and purpose of this provision remains crucial for upholding the rule of law.