Revision summary
Article 143 lets the President refer questions of public importance to the Supreme Court for an opinion. Clause (1) is discretionary for the Court; clause (2) on certain treaty disputes requires a report. The opinion is not an ordinary decree, though it is politically and legally weighty. Kerala Education Bill and Berubari show the jurisdiction at its best as advance constitutional counsel. The Ayodhya reference shows the Court may refuse a question that is better left to a pending suit; 2G shows how an invited opinion can bind the inviter politically.
Model answer
Introduction
Article 143 of the Constitution allows the President to refer a question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. This is the advisory jurisdiction, borrowed from the Government of India Act tradition and from other Commonwealth references. It is a constitutional conversation between the head of state and the Court, not a third type of lawsuit.
Body
Provisions and nature
Article 143(1) covers questions of law or fact that have arisen or are likely to arise, of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the Court’s opinion. Article 143(2) concerns disputes arising out of pre-constitutional treaties and similar instruments, where the Court shall report. Under 143(1) the Court has held that it may decline to answer, as it did in the Ayodhya reference (1993) on whether a temple existed, treating the question as unsuited to a judicial opinion while a title suit lay elsewhere.
The opinion is not an ordinary Article 141 decree, yet it is politically weighty. The President acts on Council advice, so the reference is an executive request. It can look like an attempt to outflank a state or a pending suit.
Examples and evaluation
Kerala Education Bill (1958) shaped Article 30. Berubari (1960) said cession of territory needs a constitutional amendment. Cauvery (1991) tested tribunals. The 2012 2G opinion bound the executive to a doctrine it had invited. The jurisdiction can prevent unconstitutional action in advance, but it thins fact-finding and can pull the Court onto the executive’s timetable. It is valuable for genuine legal questions and risky as a political device. The power to decline, used in the Ayodhya reference (1993), is the safety catch.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD P[President] --> A143[Article 143] A143 --> SC[Supreme Court opinion] SC --> Y[Answer: Berubari Kerala 2G] SC --> N[Decline: Ayodhya 1993] SC --> E[High authority not a decree]
Conclusion
Article 143 creates an advisory, not adversarial, jurisdiction. Its nature is an opinion to the President, authoritative yet distinct from a binding judgment in a suit. Examples from education, territory, water, and spectrum show both constitutional service and political temptation. The evaluation is that the jurisdiction is a useful spare tool, not a substitute for legislation or for a proper trial of facts.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
The recent developments in Indian Politics has not eroded the true spirit of federalism in India. Critically examine this statement with the help of appropriate illustrations
Next question in the 2025 paper (Q6). View answer →
-
Is an advisory opinion binding law?
It is not a decree between parties. In practice later benches treat major opinions as highly persuasive, and governments ignore them at political peril.
-
Who really decides to refer?
The President acts on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers, so the reference is an executive constitutional strategy.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The recent developments in Indian Politics has not eroded the true spirit of federalism in India. Critically examine this statement with the help of appropriate illustrations -
2023 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Discuss the major provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. Do you think that the Act remains an 'unfulfilled dream'? Argue your case -
2023 · Q8(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
The rise of caste politics is to be attributed to both regional aspirations and electoral manifestations. Comment -
2022 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Discuss the composition and functions of the Inter-State Council. To what extent has this body been successful in achieving its objectives? -
2021 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Explain the Aristotelian view of politics. To what extent do you think it has contributed to the development of modern-day constitutional democracies?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Philosophical approach to the study of Political theory
Political Theory
The philosophical approach treats political theory as reasoned inquiry into meaning, right, and the good regime. It defines concepts such as the state, obligation, and justice, and tests them against rival claims. Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Rawls are central practitioners of this method. Strauss, Oakeshott, Berlin, and Arendt show that texts and categories still organise modern debate. The approach is not a substitute for behavioural data or institutional history, but it supplies questions that measurement cannot invent.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Write a note on the relation between equality and liberty from the multi-cultural perspective
Political Theory
Liberty is non-arbitrary space of action; equality is the claim that this space belongs to every person. Mill and Berlin warn that liberty can be crushed in the name of a single real self or a uniform good. Taylor, Kymlicka, and Parekh show that recognition and group-differentiated rights can be liberal tools in diverse societies. Uniform rules may still silence minorities; group vetoes may still silence women and dissenters inside a community. The Indian Constitution already pairs equal citizenship with cultural rights, which is the practical form of this relation.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Macpherson's view on power
Political Theory
Macpherson read Hobbes and Locke as theorists of possessive individualism: the person as owner of capacities in a market society. The liberal state in that reading mainly protects property and contract. He then distinguished extractive power, which takes benefit from others, from developmental power, which is the ability to unfold human capacities. Democracy should be judged by equal developmental power, not only by elections or negative liberty. The argument retrieves an ethical liberalism and a non-authoritarian Marxism against a thin competitive elite model of democracy.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.