Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Article 143 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President of India to seek an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court (SC) on specific matters. This provision allows the President to refer questions of law or fact of significant public importance, or those involving the interpretation of the Constitution or certain treaties and agreements, to the apex court. The intent is to provide constitutional clarity and guidance to the executive branch, potentially averting legal disputes or misunderstandings. However, the nature of this power and the SC's response have been subject to judicial interpretation, defining its scope and limitations over time.
Article 143 outlines two distinct provisions under which the President can consult the SC:
- Clause (1): Allows the President to refer any question of law or fact which has arisen or which may arise and which is of a character considered important for the exercise of the powers and duties of the President.
- Clause (2): Empowers the President to refer specific matters arising out of pre-Constitution treaties, agreements, covenants, engagements, etc.
Nature and Scope of the Advisory Opinion
A critical aspect is that the opinion rendered by the SC under Article 143 is purely advisory and not binding on the President. The President has the discretion to accept or reject the advice.
Critical Examination and Decided Cases
The SC has consistently interpreted the scope of its advisory jurisdiction narrowly to maintain judicial independence and avoid entanglement in political or contentious issues:
- Non-binding nature: The SC has clarified that its advisory role does not equate to judicial review or adjudication of disputes.
- Rejection of References: The Court has asserted its right to decline answering a reference.
- In In re Delhi Laws Act (1951), the SC held that it would not answer questions that were hypothetical, abstract, or related to future legislation.
- In the In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993) reference, the SC refused to answer questions that sought to resolve an actual inter-state dispute, stating that the Article 143 power was not intended to bypass established adjudication mechanisms or decide disputes already pending resolution.
- Similarly, in the Presidential Election case (1974), the SC clarified the scope and refused to delve into matters outside the purview of the specific question referred.
- Public Importance: The questions referred must genuinely be of public importance or constitutional significance, not merely routine legal queries.
The power, therefore, acts as a constitutional safety valve, but its exercise is carefully calibrated by both the executive in referring and the judiciary in responding.
Conclusion
<p>The President's power to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 is a significant constitutional provision designed for seeking authoritative guidance on complex legal and constitutional matters. However, critical examination reveals its limitations, primarily the non-binding nature of the SC's opinion and the Court's ability to refuse references deemed inappropriate, political, hypothetical, or encroaching upon judicial processes. While valuable for constitutional clarity, the judicious exercise of this power by both the President and the SC ensures that it complements, rather than compromises, the distinct functions of the executive and the judiciary, upholding the separation of powers.</p>
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.