Abstract

This paper critically assesses the recent Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, subsequent to the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), dealing with the gubernatorial powers under Article 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution. The recent reference reignited debates around the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 and its transforming role in upholding the constitutional principles of democratic governance and neutrality of the judicial forum. The paper provides an extensive historical and comparative analysis of the power of reference as provided under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. Through critical analysis of the judicial precedents and prior advisory opinions, the paper examines the advisory and non-binding character of the opinion rendered under Article 143(1). It emphasizes the role of such advisory opinions in influencing significant legal developments in India, despite lacking formal binding authority under Article 141 and only carrying a persuasive value. The paper questions the use of Article 143 as a tool to reintroduce political conflicts as constitutional questions or delay the implementation of judicial decisions, undermining the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial neutrality. While Article 143 may be invoked to promote inter-institutional dialogue on crucial issues and seeking clarification, the author contends that it can be used by the executive for political purposes. The author proposes several procedural and regulatory safeguards to restrict politically inspired references and signifies the requirement for the Supreme Court to provide clear guidelines relating to the precedential value of these opinions. Finally, the paper advocates for a limited and legitimate invocation of Article 143 for preserving its significance as a legal tool for resolving issues of public importance.

Keywords