Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is required when a subordinate court or a constitutional authority requests the opinion of the higher court on a legal issue. The term advisory opinion describes the judge’s view of the court. The basis of jurisdiction has been established by a legal matter raised by the legislative body or public bodies. As mentioned, the Indian Supreme Court now has advisory authority in accordance with Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. The fundamental idea behind this jurisdiction is that the Supreme Court can help the President with any case of public interest or law.
Table of Content
What is the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
The Indian Constitution confers “advisory jurisdiction” upon the Supreme Court. This jurisdiction power has been explained and maintained in a polite manner in Article 143. The main advantage of this topic is its public importance; any form of issue has been given importance in this area.
The advisory indicates that in any kind of situation, the president can also rely on the Supreme Court’s counsel or jurisdictional authority for assistance. It has been observed that when lesser courts are required to hear a case, the higher authority supports the constitutional body. The “Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction” has been the term used to describe this process.
Article 143
The Indian Constitution gives the Supreme Court advisory power in Article 143:
- Any matter of public importance or legal issue on which the President feels it is essential to obtain an opinion from the Supreme Court may be brought up for discussion.
- The term “opinion” was used in place of “decision,” and the lines “decide the same and report the fact to the President” were changed to “submit its opinion and report to the President.” Eventually, this resulted in the Constitution being revised as Article 143.
- The Court has rarely and selectively used its advising competence, exercising caution to maintain the separation of powers and avoid interfering with the legislative or executive branches’ authority.
- The President and the government have benefited greatly from the Supreme Court’s advisory opinions, which offer clear legal interpretation and direction on difficult legal matters.
- The opinions have importance in influencing legal debate and provide clarification on constitutional and legal issues even if they are not legally binding.
Judicial Interpretation of Advisory Jurisdiction
According to Article 143 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has exercised advisory authority:
- Opinions that are strictly advisory are not legally binding.
- The Court may be asked to provide an opinion on matters of fact or law by the President.
- The Court reviews prior decisions, looks into legal and constitutional issues, and expresses an opinion based on its interpretation.
- Opinions are restricted to issues that the President has addressed, and they cannot address hypothetical or political issues.
- Advisory jurisdiction does not interfere with the legislative or executive branches of government and maintains the separation of powers.
- Though they are not legally enforceable or precedent-setting, opinions have significance.
- In general, advisory jurisdiction in India functions as a consultative body that the President refers to for advice on legal and constitutional matters of public interest.
Landmark Judgments Under Advisory Jurisdiction
Following are some of the landmark judgments under advisory jurisdiction:
- Delhi Laws (1951) SCR 747: This case serves as the first example where Article 143 was mentioned. There have only been 14 Article 143 referrals made by the President since independence. Whether the law mentioned in the decisions was “law declared by the Supreme Court,” according to Chandrachud C.J.
- Cauvery Dispute Tribunal: The Cauvery Dispute Tribunal was established by the Central Government to look into the disagreement over the Cauvery River between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The Karnataka state was directed by the Tribunal to provide Tamil Nadu with a specific volume of water in one of its orders.
- Delhi Laws Act Case: The Court examined the Act’s validity in the context of delegated legislation in the Delhi Laws Act case. It is important to note that every one of the seven justices who delivered a decision expressed their opinion. They all agreed on a few fundamental ideas, one of them being that the Parliament should have the right to grant the government legislative authority.
- The Berubari Union in 1960: A court decision was sought in Berubari Union (1960) to decide how Pakistan might receive land from India.
- Sea Customs Act (1962): To assess the validity of the Sea Customs Bill with reference to Article 288 of the Constitution.
- Case referenced by Special Court (1978): A case known as the Special Court reference case (1978) was filed to look at the extent of the legislature’s privileges and the judicial review jurisdiction.
Criticism
Turning the Supreme Court into a consulting section of the Executive Organ, is undesirable, according to some political theorists and famous jurists. They argued that courts were created to address legal concerns and that rather than expressing opinions, they should give judgments. As a result, they should not offer an opinion unless the subject is brought up in court. Furthermore, they believe that by expressing an opinion on abstract topics, future legal interests may be jeopardized.
Any legal or factual problem may be referred to the Supreme Court for advice by the President. When the Supreme Court is presented with a political issue, the court becomes involved in politics. This is hardly encouraging for a democracy attempting to create the concept of judicial independence. The advisory jurisdiction does not constrain the President, which is incompatible with and disrespectful of the Supreme Court’s status.
FAQs – Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
1. What is the Advisory Function of Supreme Court of India?
The Indian Constitution’s Article 143 granted the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, the President may consult the Supreme Court on any legal matter or matter of public concern.
2. What is the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in India?
When a lower court or a constitutional authority requests the higher court’s advice on a legal issue, advisory jurisdiction is required. The judge of the court’s opinion is referred to as the advisory opinion. A legal subject brought up by the legislative body or by public officials determines the jurisdiction.
3. Where is the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court borrowed from?
The Supreme Court borrowed its advisory jurisdiction idea from Canada. The Canadian constitution is the source of the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction and the Center’s residuary powers provisions.
4. What is Appellate and Advisory Jurisdiction?
The definition of appellate jurisdiction is the power granted to the Supreme Court to consider cases and issues that are under appeal from any lower court in the nation. These courts may be any national high court, regional court, or local court.
5. Which is the first Case of Advisory Jurisdiction?
Delhi Laws (1951) SCR 747: This case serves as the first example where Article 143 was mentioned. There have only been 14 Article 143 referrals made by the President since independence.