Supreme Court's Advisory Jurisdiction on Presidential Reference

The Supreme Court of India has accepted a Presidential Reference that questions whether the President and Governors can be compelled to act within specific timelines on bills passed by state legislatures. The issue arises following a decision regarding the Tamil Nadu government's challenge of Governor's delay in granting assent to certain bills.

Article 143 of the Constitution

Article 143(1) endows the Supreme Court with advisory jurisdiction, allowing it to offer opinions on legal questions of significant public importance upon the President's request. This process mirrors Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

• Historical Use: Invoked at least 14 times post-Independence.
• Limitations: The court's opinion is confined to the questions posed and must be heard by a bench of at least five judges.

Previous Instances and Court's Discretion

• In past cases, the Supreme Court has declined to provide opinions on references that were overly political or already under litigation.
• Example: The Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute, where the court opted not to respond due to an ongoing civil suit.
• Discretionary Power: The court may decline a reference if it involves expert evidence or political questions, as seen in the 1994 Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui case.

Binding Nature of Advisory Opinions

• While advisory opinions carry significant persuasive weight, they are not binding precedents like those rendered under Article 141.
• However, in some instances, the court has treated them with authoritative value.
• Clarification: In cases like Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala, advisory opinions were used to adjudicate legislative questions.
• Example: In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, an advisory opinion was treated as binding precedent.

Implications of the Current Reference

• The Supreme Court's upcoming advisory opinion is expected to carry persuasive weight in similar ongoing petitions, such as those from Kerala and Punjab. 
• Judicial Precedent: The court emphasized that Article 143 should not circumvent settled judicial decisions, and any challenge to previous judgments should proceed through review or curative jurisdiction.
• Scope for Clarification: The court maintains the power to restate or clarify legal principles without affecting established judgments, as seen in past cases like the Natural Resources Allocation Reference (2012).