[Answered] “The recent Presidential reference to the Supreme Court, under Article 143 of the Constitution, underscores a unique mechanism for seeking legal clarity, raising questions about its nature and the Court’s obligations.” In light of this, explain the concept of a Presidential reference under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. Further, compare this provision with similar mechanisms in other nations, and critically analyze whether the Supreme Court should be compulsorily bound to answer such questions.

Introduction

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. This Presidential reference mechanism provides a constitutional avenue for legal clarity, especially in cases involving interpretational ambiguities or constitutional conflicts. The recent reference by President Droupadi Murmu—pertaining to timelines for gubernatorial assent to State Bills—has reignited debate over the scope, significance, and obligations attached to this mechanism.

Concept of Presidential Reference under Article 143

Article 143 provides two categories of references:

1. Article 143(1): The President may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
2. Article 143(2): Refers specifically to disputes arising out of pre-constitutional treaties or agreements.

The President makes such references on the advice of the Council of Ministers. A Constitution Bench of at least five judges hears the reference, and though the Court’s opinion is not binding, it holds strong persuasive value.

Historical instances include:

1. Delhi Laws Act case (1951) – laid down the principle of delegated legislation.
2. Kerala Education Bill (1958) – interpreted the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
3. Berubari case (1960) – clarified constitutional procedure for ceding territory.
4. Third Judges case (1998) – expanded the collegium system for judicial appointments.

Comparison with Other Nations

1. Canada: The Supreme Court of Canada may provide advisory opinions upon reference by the federal or provincial governments. These opinions are influential but not binding.
2. United States: The U.S. Constitution strictly adheres to the doctrine of separation of powers. The Supreme Court has consistently refused to provide advisory opinions, viewing it as beyond judicial function.
3. United Kingdom: Though unwritten, advisory opinions may be rendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in some contexts, though limited in practice.

Thus, India’s Article 143 mechanism, influenced by the Government of India Act, 1935, is more aligned with Canada’s advisory model, offering flexibility to the executive.

Should the Supreme Court Be Bound to Answer?

Arguments Against Compulsory Response:

1. The Court’s primary role is adjudicatory, not advisory; compelling it to respond may burden judicial independence.
2. Vague or politically motivated references may undermine the Court’s integrity.
3. As seen in the Special Courts Bill case (1978) and Ram Janmabhoomi reference (1993), the Court has discretion to decline.

Arguments For a Response:

1. Article 143 references are made on important questions of national significance; avoiding response could lead to constitutional ambiguity.
2. In cases like the current one—concerning Articles 200, 201, and 142—clarity on federal powers and constitutional timelines is critical to ensure smooth Centre-State relations.

Conclusion

The Presidential reference under Article 143 is a distinctive constitutional tool that allows for legal consultation without formal litigation. While the Supreme Court’s opinion is non-binding, it plays a pivotal role in shaping legal understanding. However, the Court’s discretion to refuse ensures that it does not become a political instrument. A judicious balance between executive queries and judicial restraint is essential to uphold both constitutional governance and judicial independence.