Examine the constitutional provisions and nature of advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India. Evaluate your answer with relevant examples.

Constitutional Provisions of Advisory Jurisdiction

The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is primarily governed by Article 143 of the Constitution of India. This article delineates the circumstances under which the President can consult the Supreme Court and the nature of the Court's response. The provision finds its origins in Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which conferred similar powers upon the Governor-General to consult the Federal Court.

Article 143 is divided into two clauses, each with distinct implications:

• Article 143(1): This clause states 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 a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, "he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon." The use of "may" here indicates that the Supreme Court has the discretion to decline to offer an opinion.
• Article 143(2): This clause mandates that the President "may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon." The proviso to Article 131 deals with disputes arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad, or other similar instrument. The use of "shall" here suggests a more obligatory nature for the Court to provide an opinion.

Nature of Advisory Jurisdiction

The nature of the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction can be understood through several key characteristics:

• Consultative, not Adjudicatory: The Supreme Court, when exercising this jurisdiction, acts in a consultative capacity, not as a court resolving a dispute between parties. It provides an opinion, not a judgment, decree, or order that can be enforced.
• Non-Binding on the President: The opinion rendered by the Supreme Court under Article 143 is not binding on the President or the government. The President is free to either follow or disregard the advice. However, in practice, these opinions carry significant persuasive weight and are generally respected.
• Discretionary vs. Obligatory: While Article 143(1) grants the Supreme Court discretion to decline an opinion (e.g., if the question is political, vague, or hypothetical), Article 143(2) implies an obligation. Nevertheless, even under Article 143(2), the Court has, on occasion, declined to answer if the question is deemed incapable of judicial determination or if it resembles a legislative drafting function.
• Not "Law Declared by the Supreme Court": Advisory opinions are not considered "law declared by the Supreme Court" under Article 141 and are therefore not strictly binding on subordinate courts in India. However, they hold considerable judicial precedent and are often followed.
• Origin of Reference: While the reference technically comes from the President, Article 74(1) mandates the President to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Thus, in reality, the references are made by the Union Council of Ministers.

Evaluation with Relevant Examples

The advisory jurisdiction has been utilized on several occasions, demonstrating its utility and limitations:

Key Instances of Advisory References

Case Name (Year)	Key Issue Referred	Supreme Court's Opinion/Outcome
In re Delhi Laws Act (1951)	Constitutionality of the Delhi Laws Act regarding delegated legislation.	The Court upheld the constitutionality of delegated legislation within certain limits, clarifying the doctrine of permissible delegation. This was the first reference under Article 143.
In re Kerala Education Bill (1958)	Validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Education Bill concerning minority rights and educational institutions.	The Court balanced minority rights under Article 30 with the state's power to regulate education, providing nuanced interpretations. It also established that the Court could decline to answer questions if they were merely academic or hypothetical.
In re Berubari Union (1960)	Whether the transfer of the Berubari Union territory to Pakistan required a constitutional amendment.	The Court opined that ceding Indian territory to a foreign state required a constitutional amendment under Article 368. This led to the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act. This demonstrated the jurisdiction's importance in international relations and territorial disputes.
In re Presidential Election (1974)	Questions regarding the validity of the Presidential election when the legislative assembly of a state is dissolved.	The Court clarified that the election could proceed even if some state assemblies were dissolved, provided the electoral college was complete.
In re Special Courts Bill (1978)	Constitutional validity of the Special Courts Bill, intended to try persons holding high public office for offences committed during the Emergency.	The Court refused to answer some questions deemed hypothetical or excessively broad, asserting its power to decline opinions under Article 143(1). It clarified that it would not undertake what was essentially a legislative function.
In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1992)	Constitutional validity of an ordinance issued by Karnataka attempting to nullify the interim award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.	The Court declared the ordinance unconstitutional, reiterating that a party to a dispute cannot unilaterally nullify a binding decree or award. This case highlighted the role of advisory jurisdiction in resolving inter-state disputes.
In re Ram Janmabhoomi (1993)	Whether a temple existed at the site where the Babri Masjid was built.	The Supreme Court declined to answer this reference, holding that the question was historical and archaeological, rather than purely legal, and therefore outside its advisory jurisdiction. This emphasized the Court's reluctance to get involved in politically sensitive historical questions.
In re Gujarat Assembly Election (2002)	Whether the Election Commission could defer elections in Gujarat following communal riots and the premature dissolution of the assembly.	The Court advised that the Election Commission had the power to determine the schedule of elections, but the gap between two sessions of the legislative assembly could not exceed six months.
In re Natural Resources Allocation (2012)	Questions concerning the allocation of natural resources, specifically the legality of the "first-come-first-served" policy.	The Court opined on principles of resource allocation, emphasizing public interest and non-arbitrariness, but avoided specific policy recommendations.
Recent Reference (November 2025)	President Droupadi Murmu referred 14 questions regarding the powers of the President and state Governors to assent to Bills, following the Supreme Court's directive in State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N. (May 2025).	The Supreme Court, in its advisory opinion (November 20, 2025), held that the Governor's powers under Articles 200 and 201 are discretionary and courts cannot impose timelines for decision-making on assent to Bills, effectively revisiting its earlier stance. This highlights the contentious use of advisory jurisdiction to potentially unsettle judicial precedents.

The frequent use of this jurisdiction underscores its importance in clarifying legal ambiguities, especially in matters of constitutional interpretation, federal relations, and international agreements. While the opinions are not binding, they serve as authoritative guides for executive action and often shape subsequent legislation or policy decisions.