Supreme Court’s Advisory Role Under Article 143
President Droupadi Murmu referred critical legal questions to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. This move marks the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a feature rooted in the Government of India Act of 1935. This constitutional mechanism allows the Supreme Court to provide opinions on legal questions, although these opinions are not legally binding.
Historical Context of Article 143
Article 143 traces its origins to the Government of India Act, 1935. This act granted the Governor-General the authority to seek opinions from the federal court on questions of public importance. The Canadian Constitution includes a similar provision, permitting its Supreme Court to offer opinions. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court refrains from giving advisory opinions, adhering to a strict separation of powers.
Provisions Under Article 143
The President of India can refer questions of law or fact to the Supreme Court for its opinion. This referral is made based on the advice of the Union council of ministers. Article 145 mandates that a bench of at least five judges hears these references. The Supreme Court’s opinions are not legally binding but carry persuasive authority.
Historical Instances of References
Since 1950, there have been approximately fifteen references to the Supreme Court under Article 143. Notable cases include:
- Delhi Laws Act Case (1951) – Established the concept of ‘delegated legislation.’
- Kerala Education Bill (1958) – Addressed the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Berubari Case (1960) – Required constitutional amendments for territory ceding.
- Keshav Singh Case (1965) – Interpreted legislative powers and privileges.
- Presidential Poll Case (1974) – Affirmed the necessity of conducting elections despite vacancies.
- The court declined to provide its opinion only once, in 1993, regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi case.
Current Reference and Its Implications
The present reference arises from a Supreme Court ruling that imposed timelines on Governors and the President regarding Bills passed by State legislatures. It raises fourteen questions, focusing on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. The government questions the courts’ authority to impose timelines not specified in the Constitution. It also seeks clarity on the justiciability of the actions of Governors and the President before Bills become law. This reference is due to ongoing political conflicts between the Union government and Opposition-led State governments.
Importance for Democracy and Federalism
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinions play important role in interpreting constitutional provisions. They help clarify the limits of executive authority and the relationship between different branches of government. The outcome of the current reference could provide much-needed clarity on these important constitutional issues.
| Related | |
|---|---|
