N4S: This article is built around Article 143—a quiet, underused clause in the Constitution. UPSC typically frames this as a deep-thought GS2 question under Separation of Powers (like the 2023 question on judicial independence). It’s less about just quoting cases and more about showing how checks and balances actually work. Many aspirants falter because they get stuck listing Article 143 cases without showing how this article keeps governance smooth and institutions in harmony. They often forget to show the purpose behind it—that it prevents clashes between the executive, legislature, and judiciary before things explode. This article fixes that gap by walking you through themes like “Role of Article 143 in Indian System of Checks and Balances” and “Five Landmark Advisory Opinions” (like the Berubari Case and Third Judges Case). It also links the tool’s potential with real-life urgency—like the 2025 reference on Governors delaying state bills, showing how Article 143 can prevent Centre-State tensions. 

PYQ ANCHORING

GS 2:  “Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democ racy”. Comment. [2023]

MICROTHEME- Separation of Powers

The Indian Constitution is more than just a legal text—it’s a dynamic blueprint for governance that grows through court rulings and legislative responses. One standout feature of this framework is Article 143, which allows the President to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on important legal or constitutional questions. As noted in Law Commission Report No. 272, this reflects the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government. Justice Fali S. Nariman rightly called such provisions a mark of “mature constitutional statesmanship.”

About the issue
In May 2025, President Droupadi Murmu used Article 143 to ask the Supreme Court for advice about Articles 200 and 201 — which deal with how Governors and the President give approval to state laws. This came after the Supreme Court set deadlines for acting on State Bills, sparking an important debate about the balance of power between the Centre and the states. Since 1950, there have only been 15 such Presidential references, showing that this is a rare and special tool in the Constitution. It helps clear up tricky constitutional questions without leading to bitter legal battles.

Role of Article 143 in Indian System of Checks and Balances

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution allows the President to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on important legal or constitutional questions. This advisory role doesn’t settle disputes like a court judgment but helps clarify complex issues before they become bigger problems. By doing so, Article 143 acts as a tool to maintain a healthy balance between the different branches of government and supports smooth governance.

Five Landmark Advisory Opinions Under Article 143 That Shaped India’s Legal and Political Landscape

Article 143 allows the President to ask the Supreme Court for its advice on important legal or constitutional questions. Though these opinions are advisory, they have often clarified complex issues and influenced Indian governance deeply. Below are five key cases where Article 143 advisory opinions played a pivotal role.

Comparision of Constitutions

India is among the few democracies where the executive can formally consult the judiciary. In contrast, other countries follow diverse models:

1. Canada: The Supreme Court of Canada has an advisory jurisdiction under the Supreme Court Act (s. 53), and opinions are regularly sought on constitutional and legal questions. For instance, the 2014 reference on Senate reform and the 1998 Quebec secession reference have had long-lasting legal and political consequences.
2. United States: The U.S. Constitution maintains a strict separation of powers. Article III does not allow the Supreme Court to issue advisory opinions. 
3. United Kingdom: Although it does not have a written constitution, the UK’s judicial system allows opinions from the Law Lords (now the Supreme Court) via declaratory judgments in matters of significant legal uncertainty.
4. Australia: The High Court cannot provide advisory opinions due to constitutional constraints (Section 76).
5. France: The Conseil Constitutional reviews laws pre-promulgation, effectively offering binding advisory review on constitutional compliance.

Thus, India’s mechanism is more aligned with Canada’s model, blending judicial authority with executive consultative processes. India’s model is more flexible than the U.S., yet more limited in scope and enforceability compared to France and Canada.

Way Forward

1. Set Clear Rules for Advisory References: The Supreme Court should codify guidelines on what kinds of questions are allowed, how soon they must be answered, and in what form. Canada’s model ensures precise questions, public hearings, and fixed timelines.
2. Keep it Focused on Legal and Constitutional Issues: The reference power should only be used for constitutional interpretation—not political or vague issues (e.g., Ram Janmabhoomi case, 1993, which blurred legal lines and judicial neutrality).
3. Make the Process More Transparent and Inclusive
   Allow public experts, think tanks, and civil society to submit inputs—like in the Right to Privacy and Section 377 hearings where diverse voices strengthened the judgment.
4. Clarify Whether Opinions are Binding or Not
   A constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling should define the legal status of advisory opinions (e.g., Berubari Case, 1960, saw the govt selectively use the Court’s opinion).
5. Build Accountability through Reporting
   The SC should publish data on Article 143 cases—how many came in, how many were answered, and whether the government acted on them—within its Annual Report.
6. Consult States on Federal Matters
   If a reference affects State powers, a formal consultation mechanism should be built in. This aligns with the Punchhi Commission (2010) and would improve Centre-State trust.

#BACK2BASICS: Presidential Reference under Article 143

Article 143 lets the President ask the Supreme Court for advice on important legal or factual questions that affect the public. This idea comes from a similar power given to the British Governor-General back in 1935.

Under this article, the President can seek the Court’s opinion on any big public issue (Article 143(1)) or on cases already before other courts, especially involving treaties (Article 143(2)). Such questions are heard by a bench of at least five Supreme Court judges.

While the Court’s advice isn’t binding, it carries great weight and helps settle major constitutional questions peacefully. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer said, these references create a “solemn judicial discussion on national issues.”

Some famous examples where Article 143 opinions shaped India include:

• Delhi Laws Act (1951): Set limits on delegated law-making powers.
• Kerala Education Bill (1958): Balanced Fundamental Rights and policy goals.
• Berubari Case (1960): Said giving away Indian territory needs a constitutional amendment.
• Presidential Poll Case (1974): Upheld election validity even with electoral vacancies.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Strengthened the system of appointing judges through the collegium.
• Keshav Singh Case (1965): Balanced court review with legislative privileges.

Significance of Article 143

1. Clarifies Constitutional Doubts: Helps resolve legal ambiguities (e.g., 2025 reference on Articles 200 & 201 clarifies timelines for gubernatorial assent).
2. Protects Federal Balance: Offers a peaceful way to handle Centre-State tensions (e.g., Cauvery Water Dispute, 1992).
3. Ensures Executive Accountability: Keeps actions within constitutional limits (e.g., Kerala Education Bill, 1958 clarified Rights vs. Directive Principles).
4. Enables Judicial Innovation: Allows creative interpretation (e.g., Third Judges Case, 1998 led to Collegium system).
5. Resolves Legal Grey Areas: Settles vital legal questions (e.g., Berubari Case, 1960—territory cession needs constitutional amendment).
6. Reduces Future Litigation: Prevents disputes from escalating to court (e.g., 70,000+ pending SC cases in 2023).

Challenges with Article 143

1. Vague or Political References: Questions may be too broad or sensitive (e.g., Ram Janmabhoomi, 1993—Court declined to opine).
2. Not Legally Binding: Opinions can be ignored (e.g., Berubari Case, 1960—initially overlooked by govt).
3. Possible Political Misuse: Used to delay tough decisions (e.g., during politically sensitive times).
4. Lack of Public Input: No space for civil society participation.
5. Adds to SC Workload: Non-binding references divert attention (e.g., 80,000+ pending cases in 2024).
6. Can Strain Federal Relations: Opposition states may view it as Centre overreach (e.g., 2025 reference on Governors’ powers).

SMASH MAINS MOCK DROP

“Article 143 reflects the Indian Constitution’s commitment to mature constitutional statesmanship.”Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 in maintaining constitutional balance, with suitable examples.