Question

Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President may seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. The opinion rendered by the Court in such a reference is generally regarded as:

• A. Enforceable through contempt jurisdiction
• B. A binding precedent under Article 141
• C. Advisory in nature and not strictly binding
• D. Equivalent to a decree of the Court

Hint:

Associate Article 143 with the phrase "President asks, Supreme Court advises." This instantly identifies the advisory nature of the jurisdiction.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Concept: Article 143 of the Constitution confers Advisory Jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court of India. It enables the President to seek the Court's opinion on questions of law or fact that are of public importance and require authoritative constitutional guidance. Unlike ordinary judicial proceedings, there is no dispute between rival parties. The Court merely advises the President on important legal questions.

Step 1: Understanding Article 143. Article 143 contains two important features:

• The President may refer a question of public importance to the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court may report its opinion after hearing interested parties.
The Court may even decline to answer a reference if it considers it inappropriate.

Step 2: Nature of the opinion. The opinion delivered under Article 143 differs from an ordinary judgment because:

• There is no actual litigation.

• No decree is passed.

• No executable order is issued.

• The President is not legally compelled to act upon the opinion.
Hence, the opinion is advisory in nature.

Step 3: Practical significance. Although technically non-binding, advisory opinions carry enormous constitutional weight because they emanate from the Supreme Court. Historically, governments and public authorities generally follow such opinions due to their persuasive authority and constitutional importance.

Step 4: Analysis of options.

• Option (A): No contempt action arises because an advisory opinion is not an enforceable order. Incorrect.

• Option (B): While highly persuasive, an Article 143 opinion is not ordinarily treated as a conventional precedent under Article 141. Incorrect.

• Option (C): The opinion is advisory and not strictly binding. Correct.

• Option (D): No decree is passed in advisory jurisdiction. Incorrect.

Important Examples of Presidential References:

• In Re Berubari Union (1960)

• Special Courts Bill Reference (1978)

• Ayodhya Reference (1993)
These references demonstrate how Article 143 assists the executive in obtaining constitutional guidance on important national issues.

Article 143 empowers the Supreme Court to advise, not adjudicate.

Answer 2

Article 143 of the Constitution creates an advisory jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, distinct from its ordinary adjudicatory role, so each option should be tested against what an advisory opinion under this article actually produces.

1. Enforceable through contempt jurisdiction: contempt jurisdiction is used to enforce compliance with binding orders and directions of a court, but an advisory opinion under Article 143 does not create an enforceable order or direction against any party, so there is nothing here that contempt jurisdiction could enforce.
2. A binding precedent under Article 141: Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within India, but an opinion rendered in the exercise of advisory jurisdiction under Article 143, given in the absence of an actual dispute between parties, is not treated in the same way as a binding precedent arising from ordinary adjudication.
3. Advisory in nature and not strictly binding: because Article 143 proceedings involve no decree, no executable order, and no obligation on the President to act upon the opinion, the opinion is properly understood as advisory, carrying great persuasive and constitutional weight but not strict binding force on the executive.
4. Equivalent to a decree of the Court: a decree is the formal expression of an adjudication between contesting parties in a suit, and Article 143 proceedings involve no such adjudication or decree at all, so equating the opinion with a decree misdescribes its legal character.

Because an Article 143 reference produces neither an enforceable order nor a decree, and is not treated as an ordinary binding precedent under Article 141 in the way a decision in a contested case would be, describing it as advisory and not strictly binding is the accurate characterisation.

Therefore, the correct answer is advisory in nature and not strictly binding.