Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction

Source: HT

Context: President of India has invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) to clarify whether time limits can be imposed on the President and Governors to act on state legislature Bills.

About Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction:

• What Is Advisory Jurisdiction?

• Advisory jurisdiction allows the President of India to seek the SC’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. It enables constitutional interpretation without a direct legal dispute. The opinion given is not binding, unlike judicial rulings.

• Advisory jurisdiction allows the President of India to seek the SC’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.

• It enables constitutional interpretation without a direct legal dispute.

• The opinion given is not binding, unlike judicial rulings.

• Constitutional Basis:

• Article 143(1): The President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the SC. Article 143(2): Refers to matters related to pre-constitutional treaties, agreements, or covenants, especially concerning former princely states.

• Article 143(1): The President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the SC.

• Article 143(2): Refers to matters related to pre-constitutional treaties, agreements, or covenants, especially concerning former princely states.

• Features:

• Discretionary in Nature: SC may choose to answer or decline the reference. Non-binding: The opinion returned is advisory, not enforceable. Bench Strength: As per Article 145(3), such matters must be heard by a Constitution Bench (minimum five judges). Independent Aid: Offers the President independent legal insight apart from Cabinet advice.

• Discretionary in Nature: SC may choose to answer or decline the reference.

• Non-binding: The opinion returned is advisory, not enforceable.

• Bench Strength: As per Article 145(3), such matters must be heard by a Constitution Bench (minimum five judges).

• Independent Aid: Offers the President independent legal insight apart from Cabinet advice.

• Historical Usage of Article 143:

• Invoked 14 times since 1950. Landmark instances include: Delhi Laws Act Case (1951): On delegation of legislative powers. Berubari Union Case (1960): On transfer of territory to Pakistan. Kesavananda Bharati Follow-up (1973): Reinforced Basic Structure doctrine. Judges Appointment Reference (1998): Collegium system clarified. Cauvery Dispute (1992): Federal tribunal jurisdiction. Ayodhya Site (1993): Reference declined for being politically sensitive.

• Invoked 14 times since 1950.

• Landmark instances include: Delhi Laws Act Case (1951): On delegation of legislative powers. Berubari Union Case (1960): On transfer of territory to Pakistan. Kesavananda Bharati Follow-up (1973): Reinforced Basic Structure doctrine. Judges Appointment Reference (1998): Collegium system clarified. Cauvery Dispute (1992): Federal tribunal jurisdiction. Ayodhya Site (1993): Reference declined for being politically sensitive.

• Delhi Laws Act Case (1951): On delegation of legislative powers.

• Berubari Union Case (1960): On transfer of territory to Pakistan.

• Kesavananda Bharati Follow-up (1973): Reinforced Basic Structure doctrine.

• Judges Appointment Reference (1998): Collegium system clarified.

• Cauvery Dispute (1992): Federal tribunal jurisdiction.

• Ayodhya Site (1993): Reference declined for being politically sensitive.