Article 143 is the provision of the Constitution of India that confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, empowering the President to refer questions of law or fact of public importance for the Court's opinion. Under Indian law, this jurisdiction is distinct from the Supreme Court's original (Article 131) and appellate jurisdictions, as the opinion rendered is advisory and not technically binding as a judicial precedent.
Legal definition
Article 143 of the Constitution of India provides:
Article 143(1): If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
Article 143(2): The President may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to Article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
The distinction between the two clauses is significant. Under Clause (1), the Court "may" report its opinion — it retains a discretion to decline the reference. Under Clause (2), which deals with disputes relating to pre-constitutional treaties and agreements, the Court "shall" report its opinion — the response is mandatory. The advisory jurisdiction traces its origins to Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which empowered the Governor-General to refer questions to the Federal Court.
How courts have interpreted this term
In re The Delhi Laws Act [AIR 1951 SC 332]
The first Presidential reference under Article 143. The President referred questions concerning the scope of delegated legislation and whether the Central Government could extend laws to Part C States with modifications. The seven-judge bench rendered its advisory opinion, establishing the foundational framework for permissible limits of delegated legislation in India. The reference clarified that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated, though ancillary or subordinate legislative power may be.
In re The Berubari Union [AIR 1960 SC 845]
The President referred the question of whether the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement (regarding cession of Berubari Union to Pakistan) required a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court opined that cession of Indian territory to a foreign state is not within the executive power and requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. This opinion directly led to the enactment of the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960.
In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal) [(1998) 7 SCC 739]
The Supreme Court clarified the binding nature of the award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. The Court also affirmed the principle that while advisory opinions under Article 143 are not technically decrees, they are entitled to great weight and are normally followed by the executive.
Why this matters
Article 143 serves a unique constitutional function. It enables the executive to obtain authoritative judicial guidance on complex constitutional and legal questions before taking action, thereby preventing potential constitutional crises. Unlike adversarial litigation, the advisory jurisdiction allows the Court to consider questions in the abstract, without waiting for a concrete dispute between parties.
For practitioners, it is important to note that while advisory opinions under Article 143 are not binding precedents in the strict sense — as clarified in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) — they carry immense persuasive authority. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that its advisory opinions are entitled to due respect and are ordinarily followed.
The advisory jurisdiction has been invoked sparingly. Notable references include the Delhi Laws Act (1951), the Berubari Union (1960), the Kerala Education Bill (1958), the Keshav Singh case (1965), and the Special Reference on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute (1993). The Ram Janmabhoomi reference under Article 143(1) is notable as the only instance where a question of fact was referred — the Court declined to answer it, holding that the reference was superfluous. This confirms that under Clause (1), the Court retains discretion to refuse the reference.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Sibling jurisdictions:
- Article 32 (Constitutional Remedies)
- Article 136 (Special Leave Petition)
- Article 226 (High Court Writ Jurisdiction)
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Is the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 binding?
Technically, an advisory opinion under Article 143 is not a binding judicial precedent in the same way as a judgment rendered in adversarial proceedings. In Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974), a nine-judge bench held that a report made in a reference under Article 143 does not bind the Supreme Court in subsequent matters. However, advisory opinions carry great persuasive weight and are ordinarily followed by the government and by courts.
Can the Supreme Court refuse to answer a Presidential reference?
Under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court "may" report its opinion, which implies a discretion to decline. In Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid), the Court declined to answer the factual question referred by the President, holding that the reference was unnecessary and superfluous. Under Article 143(2), however, the Court "shall" report its opinion, leaving no discretion to refuse.
How many times has Article 143 been invoked?
Article 143 has been invoked approximately 15 times since the Constitution came into force. Notable references include the Delhi Laws Act (1951), the Berubari Union (1960), the Kerala Education Bill (1958), the Keshav Singh case (1965), the Special Reference on Ram Janmabhoomi (1993), and the Cauvery Water Disputes reference (1998). The most recent reference involved the question of Governor's powers under Articles 200 and 201 in 2025.
Who can make a reference under Article 143?
Only the President of India can make a reference under Article 143. No private party, state government, or other constitutional functionary has the power to invoke the advisory jurisdiction. In practice, the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74, so the decision to make a reference is effectively that of the Union Government.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.