Which of the following statements regarding the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are correct ? I. It is binding on the Supreme Court to give its opinion on any matter referred to it by the President. II. The full bench of the Supreme Court hears any reference made to it under its power of advisory jurisdiction. III. The opinion given by the Supreme Court on a reference under advisory jurisdiction is not binding on the government. IV. Not more than one reference at a time can be made to the Supreme Court under its power of advisory jurisdiction. Select the answer from the codes given below: Codes :

1. Structure and Hierarchy of the Indian Judiciary (basic)

Welcome! To understand how the Indian legal system functions, we must first look at its structural foundation. Unlike many federal countries, India does not have a 'dual' judicial system where the center and states have separate courts for their respective laws. Instead, the Indian Constitution establishes a system that is integrated and independent. Think of it as a single, unified pyramid where every court is linked to the one above it, ensuring that justice is administered uniformly across the nation Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30.

At the apex (top) of this pyramid sits the Supreme Court of India. Below it are the High Courts, which serve as the highest judicial authority within a state or a group of states. Finally, at the base, we have the Subordinate Courts, which include District Courts and other lower courts Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.353. This "single system" is a deliberate choice made by our Constitution-makers to eliminate diversities in remedial procedures—meaning a citizen gets the same standard of legal remedy whether they are dealing with a Central law or a State law Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Centre-State Relations, p.151.

Feature	Indian Judicial System	USA Judicial System
Structure	Integrated (Single Hierarchy)	Dual (Federal & State hierarchies)
Law Enforcement	Single system enforces both Central and State laws	Federal courts for federal laws; State courts for state laws

This integration is further reinforced by the way judges are appointed and transferred. For instance, High Court judges are appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and they can be moved from one High Court to another, bridging the gap between state-level administration and the national judiciary Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Centre-State Relations, p.151.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Centre-State Relations, p.151; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.353

2. Original and Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (basic)

In our legal system, Original Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a case for the very first time, rather than reviewing a decision made by a lower court. For the Supreme Court of India, this power acts as a vital safeguard for our federal structure and our individual liberties. Think of the Supreme Court as an 'umpire' in a cricket match; just as an umpire settles disputes on the field, the Supreme Court resolves legal conflicts between the different units of the Indian federation Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI, Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.132. Under Article 131, the Supreme Court has Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. This means only the Supreme Court has the authority to settle disputes between the Government of India and one or more States, or between two or more States. Because these disputes involve the very units of our federation, they cannot be heard by any other court Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.346. This ensures that federal conflicts are decided by the highest judicial body, maintaining uniformity and stability in the nation. However, the Supreme Court also possesses a second type of original jurisdiction under Article 32, known as Writ Jurisdiction. This allows any citizen to approach the Supreme Court directly if their Fundamental Rights are violated. While this is 'original' because you don't need to file an appeal to get there, it is not exclusive. Under Article 226, High Courts also have the power to issue writs. Therefore, the Supreme Court and High Courts share concurrent jurisdiction in matters of Fundamental Rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.291.

Feature	Federal Disputes (Art. 131)	Fundamental Rights (Art. 32)
Nature of Jurisdiction	Exclusive (Only SC)	Concurrent (SC & High Courts)
Who can approach?	Union or State Governments	Any aggrieved citizen
Purpose	Maintaining federal balance	Protecting individual liberty

It is important to remember that while the Supreme Court is the 'guarantor' of Fundamental Rights, it often encourages citizens to approach High Courts first as a matter of convenience and judicial policy, although Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right and cannot be easily denied Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348.

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.132; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), THE SUPREME COURT, p.346, 348; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.291

3. Appellate Jurisdiction and Special Leave Petition (SLP) (intermediate)

In our judicial hierarchy, the Supreme Court sits at the apex not just as a protector of rights, but as the final stop for justice. Appellate Jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court has the power to reconsider cases and the legal issues already decided by lower courts Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6, p.132. While High Courts handle most local matters, the Supreme Court ensures that the law of the land is applied uniformly. However, you must remember that parties are generally expected to exhaust all available remedies in the lower hierarchy before knocking on the Supreme Court's door Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348.
The most unique and powerful tool in this jurisdiction is the Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136. Think of SLP as a 'safety valve' of the Constitution. Unlike regular appeals, an SLP does not confer a right of appeal on any party; rather, it gives the Supreme Court the discretionary power to intervene whenever it feels justice has been miscarried Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.350. This power is exceptionally wide—it can be used against any judgment, decree, or order from any court or tribunal in India.
However, there is one critical boundary: Military Tribunals. The Supreme Court cannot grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order passed by a court or tribunal relating to the Armed Forces Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.349. Furthermore, the Court is selective; it typically ignores minor errors of fact and steps in only when substantial questions of law or matters of great public importance are at stake Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.357.

Feature	Ordinary Appeal	Special Leave Petition (Article 136)
Nature of Right	Often a statutory or constitutional right.	Entirely discretionary; not a right of the litigant.
Scope	Limited to specific types of cases (Civil/Criminal).	Widest possible terms; any "cause or matter."
Exclusion	Varies by law.	Strictly excludes Military/Armed Forces tribunals.

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.132; Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.348-350, 357

4. Power of Judicial Review and Article 13 (intermediate)

To understand the Indian Constitution, one must recognize the judiciary as the protector of the 'Rule of Law.' The power of Judicial Review is the mechanism through which the Supreme Court and High Courts examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. If a law is found to violate the Constitution, the courts can declare it 'ultra vires' or unconstitutional. Interestingly, while the term 'Judicial Review' is never explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, the power itself is woven into its fabric, most notably through Article 13 Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 27: Judicial Review, p.297. Article 13 acts as a powerful 'sentinel on the qui vive' (a watchful guardian). It declares that all laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights (Part III) shall be void. This applies to both pre-constitutional laws (existing before 1950) and post-constitutional laws. However, the scope of judicial review isn't just limited to Fundamental Rights. A law can be challenged on three specific grounds:

Ground for Challenge	Explanation
Infringement of Fundamental Rights	If the law violates any right guaranteed in Part III (e.g., Right to Equality).
Legislative Competence	If the authority (Parliament or State Legislature) didn't have the power to make that law under the Seventh Schedule.
Repugnancy to Constitutional Provisions	If the law contradicts any other specific provision of the Constitution.

Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 27: Judicial Review, p.298 Finally, it is vital to remember that Judicial Review is considered a part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. As established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), this power is so fundamental that it cannot be curtailed or taken away even by a Constitutional Amendment Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 11: Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.129. This ensures that the Constitution remains supreme and that the government operates within its defined legal boundaries.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 27: Judicial Review, p.297-298; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 11: Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.129

5. Independence of the Judiciary and Appointment Process (exam-level)

In the Indian democratic framework, the Independence of the Judiciary is not just a legal technicality but a fundamental pillar that ensures the rule of law. It means that the executive and legislature must not restrain the judiciary's functioning or interfere with its decisions, allowing judges to perform their duties without fear or favour Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p. 125. However, as noted by Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar during the Constituent Assembly Debates, this independence is not a 'dogma' to create a 'super-legislature'; rather, it is a functional necessity to protect the Constitution and settle disputes between the Centre and States Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p. 142.

To safeguard this independence, the Constitution provides security of tenure and fixed service conditions for judges Indian Polity, Chapter 13: Federal System, p. 139. One of the most critical aspects of maintaining this autonomy is the Appointment Process. Historically, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court was always appointed as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) by convention. This was famously violated twice: in 1973 (appointment of A.N. Ray) and 1977 (appointment of M.U. Beg), leading to intense debates about executive interference in judicial matters Indian Polity, Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p. 286.

The modern appointment system evolved through the 'Judges Cases,' resulting in the Collegium System, where a group of senior judges recommends names for appointment. In 2014, the government attempted to change this via the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This body included the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons alongside judges. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, ruling that it interfered with judicial independence, which is a 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Consequently, the Collegium system was revived Indian Polity, Chapter 34: High Court, p. 354.

Feature	Collegium System	NJAC (Struck Down)
Composition	Purely Judicial (CJI and senior-most judges).	Mixed (Judges, Law Minister, and 'Eminent Persons').
Basis	Judicial interpretations (Judges Cases).	99th Constitutional Amendment Act.
Current Status	Currently operational.	Declared void in 2015.

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.125, 142; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 13: Federal System, p.139; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.286; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.354

6. Article 143: The Two Categories of Presidential References (intermediate)

When we talk about the Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction under Article 143, it is important to understand that the President doesn't just ask questions in a vacuum. The Constitution specifically divides these "Presidential References" into two distinct categories, each with its own set of rules regarding how the Court must respond. Think of it as two different doors the President can knock on: one where the Court has the choice to answer, and one where the Court is legally bound to open the door.

The first category involves any question of law or fact that is of such public importance that the President deems it "expedient" to get the Court’s view. This could be about a law already passed or a situation that is likely to arise in the future. Interestingly, in this category, the Supreme Court is not a mere servant to the executive; it may tender its opinion, but it also has the discretion to refuse to answer if it feels the question is socio-political rather than legal, or if it’s otherwise inappropriate M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p. 292.

The second category is much more specific and mandatory. it covers disputes arising out of any pre-Constitution treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, or sanad. Because Article 131 (Original Jurisdiction) excludes these old historical agreements from regular court cases, Article 143 provides a safety valve. If the President refers a matter from this category, the Supreme Court must tender its opinion. It does not have the luxury of refusal here D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p. 351.

Regardless of which category the reference falls into, the procedure remains rigorous. Any reference under Article 143 must be heard by a Bench of at least five judges (often called a Constitutional Bench). Furthermore, it is vital to remember that the outcome is called an "opinion," not a "judgment." It is advisory in nature, meaning it is not binding on the President, nor is it executable like a decree in a normal civil case NCERT, Political Science Class XI, Chapter 6, p. 133.

Feature	Category 1: Public Importance	Category 2: Pre-Constitution Matters
Subject Matter	Question of law or fact of public importance.	Dispute regarding pre-Constitution treaties/agreements.
Court's Obligation	Discretionary (The Court may refuse).	Mandatory (The Court must answer).
Bench Strength	Minimum 5 Judges.	Minimum 5 Judges.

Sources: M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.292; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.351; NCERT, Political Science Class XI (2025 ed.), Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.133

7. Nuances of Advisory Opinion: Bench Strength and Binding Nature (exam-level)

When the President of India seeks the Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143, the process differs significantly from regular litigation. Because these references often involve complex legal questions or the interpretation of the Constitution, the law mandates a specific Bench Strength. Under Article 145(3), any matter involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, including a reference made under Article 143, must be heard by a Bench of not less than five judges. This is why such references are typically handled by what is known as a Constitution Bench Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p.295.

A crucial nuance to master is the legal weight of the Court’s response. Unlike a typical judgment, the Supreme Court’s response under Article 143 is an "opinion" and not a judicial pronouncement. This has two major implications:

• For the Court: The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to provide an opinion in every case. If it feels the reference is politically motivated or inappropriate for judicial determination, it may decline to answer.
• For the President: The opinion is not binding. The President (effectively the Union Cabinet) is free to follow or disregard the advice provided Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Chapter 6, p.133.

Despite being non-binding, these opinions carry immense persuasive value and help the government avoid potential legal hurdles before enacting a policy or law. There is also no constitutional restriction on the frequency of these references; the President can make multiple references simultaneously if the need arises D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter: The Supreme Court, p.351.

Feature	Regular Judgment	Advisory Opinion (Art. 143)
Nature	Binding and Executable	Consultative/Non-binding
Bench Strength	Varies (usually 2 or 3)	Minimum 5 Judges
Parties	Litigation between parties	No formal litigation

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.292, 295; Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Chapter 6: Judiciary, p.133; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Supreme Court, p.351

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Review the concepts above and try solving the question.