Constitutional Basis and Origin
- Article 143 empowers the President of India to refer questions of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
- This is a non-binding, advisory opinion by the court.
- Originates from Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity and Governance)
Comparative Perspective
- Canada: Has a similar provision; Supreme Court provides opinions on reference questions.
- USA: No advisory jurisdiction; advisory opinions are considered a violation of the separation of powers.
Key Features of Article 143
- The President acts on advice of the Council of Ministers while referring matters.
- Supreme Court may (not must) answer the reference.
- Requires a bench of at least five judges (as per Article 145).
- The opinion has persuasive value, not binding on the President or future courts.
Important Precedents (Historical References)
- Delhi Laws Act case (1951): Validated delegated legislation.
- Kerala Education Bill (1958): Harmonized Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Berubari Case (1960): Territorial cession needs constitutional amendment.
- Keshav Singh Case (1965): Legislative privileges defined.
- Presidential Poll Case (1974): Elections can proceed despite vacancies.
- Special Courts Bill (1978): Court can decline vague references.
- Third Judges Case (1998): Defined the collegium system for judicial appointments.
Court’s Discretion
- The Supreme Court is not bound to answer every Presidential reference.
- Has declined only once — in Ram Janmabhoomi case (1993).
Current Presidential Reference (2024-25)
- Stems from a recent SC ruling that:
- Imposed timelines on Governors and the President for acting on Bills.
- Made their actions subject to judicial review.
- President Droupadi Murmu has raised 14 questions concerning:
- Interpretation of Articles 200 & 201.
- Judicial review of executive actions before enactment.
- The scope of Article 142 (extraordinary powers of the SC).
- Issue arises due to Centre-State tensions, especially with Opposition-ruled States.
Core Issues Raised
- Can the Supreme Court prescribe timelines not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?
- Are Governor/President’s decisions justiciable before a Bill becomes law?
- What is the extent of Article 142 powers?
Broader Implications
- Touches upon separation of powers and federalism.
- May define boundaries of judicial activism in legislative processes.
- An authoritative opinion can ensure smooth Centre-State legislative functioning.
Conclusion
- Presidential references serve as a constitutional dialogue between the executive and judiciary.
- The current reference may set important precedents on executive discretion, legislative processes, and judicial boundaries.
