Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
In recent developments, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion regarding the timelines for the Presidential assent on Bills passed by state Assemblies. This inquiry follows a controversial ruling by the Supreme Court, which mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on such Bills. This situation marks the complex relationship between the executive and judiciary in India’s constitutional framework.
About Advisory Jurisdiction
Advisory jurisdiction allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal questions. This power is enshrined in Article 143 of the Constitution of India. Unlike binding judgments, the Court’s opinion serves as guidance. The President may refer questions of law or fact that arise or are likely to arise, which are of public importance.
Historical Context
The concept of advisory jurisdiction traces back to the Government of India Act of 1935, which allowed the Federal Court to advise on legal questions. The Constitution expanded this to include both legal and factual matters. The Supreme Court’s advisory role is rarely invoked but serves as important mechanism for constitutional clarity.
Process of Seeking Opinion
When the President refers a question, the Supreme Court must hear it. Article 145(3) necessitates a bench of at least five judges to deliberate on the matter. The Court has discretion in deciding whether to respond to the reference. Historically, it has answered most inquiries, with only one instance of returning a reference unanswered due to technicalities.
Limitations of Advisory Opinions
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinions are non-binding and do not create legal precedents. Even if the Court finds a law unconstitutional, it cannot strike it down without a separate case. This limitation puts stress on the advisory nature of the opinion, which lacks the force of a judicial ruling.
Recent Controversies and Implications
The recent reference by President Murmu stems from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision to withhold assent from several Bills. This situation illustrates the ongoing tension between state governments and the Centre. Critics argue that such actions undermine the autonomy of elected state governments.
Broader Constitutional Issues
The reference raises broader questions about the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting constitutional provisions. It queries whether smaller benches can address substantive constitutional questions or if they require larger benches. Additionally, it seeks clarity on the use of Article 142, which grants the Court discretion to ensure justice.
Political Reactions
The ruling has drawn criticism from government officials who argue it infringes upon the powers of the President. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar and Attorney General R Venkataramani have both expressed concerns regarding the judiciary’s overreach into parliamentary matters. This reflects a long-standing debate about the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary.
| Related | |
|---|---|
