Points to Remember:
- Advisory Jurisdiction: Power of the Supreme Court to advise the President on questions of law or fact.
- Presidential Reference: The mechanism through which the President seeks the Court’s opinion.
- Discretionary Power: The President is not obligated to seek advice, and the Court is not obligated to provide it.
- Binding Nature: The Court’s advisory opinion is not binding, but it carries significant weight.
- Limitations: The Court may refuse to answer questions involving hypothetical situations or political matters.
Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, the apex court of the nation, possesses a unique power beyond its primary adjudicative role: advisory jurisdiction. This allows the President of India to seek the Court’s opinion on any question of law or fact. Article 143 of the Constitution of India grants this power, stating: “The President may at any time refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion.” This mechanism serves as a crucial check and balance, providing a neutral and expert opinion on complex issues facing the executive branch. While not binding, the Court’s advisory opinions carry significant weight, influencing policy decisions and shaping legal interpretations.
Body:
1. The Mechanism of Presidential Reference:
The process begins with the President formally referring a question to the Supreme Court. This reference typically involves a detailed statement of the question, relevant facts, and supporting documents. The Court then constitutes a bench of judges to consider the matter. The proceedings are similar to regular court hearings, with arguments presented by the Attorney General of India and other parties involved. The Court’s opinion is delivered in writing, often accompanied by detailed reasoning.
2. Discretionary Nature of the Power:
It’s crucial to understand that both the President’s power to refer and the Court’s power to answer are discretionary. The President is not obligated to seek advice, and the Court can refuse to answer a question if it deems it inappropriate, for example, if the question is hypothetical, involves a political question, or is otherwise unsuitable for judicial determination. The Court’s refusal is not subject to judicial review.
3. Non-Binding Nature of Advisory Opinions:
While the Court’s advisory opinion carries significant weight and influence, it is not legally binding. The President is free to accept or reject the opinion. However, given the Court’s prestige and expertise, ignoring its advice is rare and carries significant political implications. The President’s decision, whether to follow the advice or not, is not subject to judicial review.
4. Historical Examples and Significance:
The advisory jurisdiction has been invoked on several occasions throughout Indian history, addressing crucial issues ranging from constitutional interpretation to interstate disputes. While specific cases are not publicly documented in the same way as regular judgments, the impact of these opinions on policy and legal development is undeniable. The Court’s opinions have often shaped the understanding and application of constitutional provisions, providing valuable guidance to the executive and legislature.
5. Limitations and Criticisms:
Critics argue that the advisory jurisdiction can lead to judicial overreach, blurring the lines between the judiciary and the executive. Concerns have also been raised about the potential for the President to selectively use this power to influence judicial decisions or to avoid accountability. The lack of transparency surrounding some references has also drawn criticism.
Conclusion:
The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is a unique and important aspect of the Indian constitutional framework. While the opinions rendered are not binding, they hold significant weight and influence policy decisions. The discretionary nature of both the President’s power to refer and the Court’s power to respond ensures a balance of power. However, maintaining transparency and addressing concerns about potential overreach are crucial for preserving the integrity of this mechanism. Moving forward, greater transparency in the process of presidential references and clearer guidelines on the types of questions suitable for advisory opinions could enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of this constitutional provision, ultimately contributing to a more robust and accountable governance system. This would strengthen the rule of law and uphold the constitutional values of justice and fairness.
CGPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for CGPCS Prelims and CGPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by CGPCS Notes are as follows:-