Question

Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President may seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. The opinion rendered by the Court in such a reference is generally regarded as:

• A. Enforceable through contempt jurisdiction
• B. A binding precedent under Article 141
• C. Advisory in nature and not strictly binding
• D. Equivalent to a decree of the Court

Hint:

Associate Article 143 with the phrase "President asks, Supreme Court advises." This instantly identifies the advisory nature of the jurisdiction.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The nature of an Article 143 opinion can be tested by asking what legal consequence, if any, follows automatically from it, and comparing that against each option.

1. Contempt enforcement, binding precedent status, or equivalence to a decree: each of these implies some form of automatic legal compulsion or formal adjudicatory consequence, none of which follows from an advisory reference, since there is no decree, no executable order, and no party bound by an enforceable direction in such a proceeding.
2. Advisory in nature and not strictly binding: this matches the actual legal position, since the President is not compelled to act on the opinion, and the Court is itself simply advising rather than adjudicating a dispute between parties.

Because none of the three alternative characterisations captures the true legal effect, or lack of automatic legal effect, of an Article 143 opinion, describing it as advisory and not strictly binding is the correct answer.

Answer 2

The confusion in this question usually arises from treating an Article 143 reference like an ordinary case decided by the Supreme Court, so comparing the two side by side clears up the correct characterisation.

1. Ordinary adjudication under Article 141: when the Supreme Court decides an actual dispute between contesting parties, its ruling becomes binding on all courts in India, backed by the possibility of contempt proceedings for non-compliance with any direction issued, and culminating, where relevant, in a decree.
2. Advisory jurisdiction under Article 143: here, by contrast, there is no adversarial dispute to adjudicate at all; the President simply seeks the Court's opinion on a question of public importance, the Court may even decline to answer, and whatever opinion is given creates no decree, no executable order, and no compulsion on the President to act on it.

Because the machinery of binding precedent, contempt enforcement, and decrees belongs to ordinary adjudication under Article 141 and simply has no counterpart in the advisory process under Article 143, the opinion given in such a reference is correctly described as advisory in nature and not strictly binding.

Therefore, the correct answer is advisory in nature and not strictly binding.