INTRODUCTION
Recently, the President of India asked the Supreme Court for legal advice on an important issue. This was done under Article 143 of the Constitution, which allows the President to ask the Court’s opinion on big legal or constitutional questions.
The Court said Governors and the President shouldn’t delay bills passed by state assemblies. Now, the President has asked for advice on this ruling, but it seems like a way to question the decision without following the right steps.
This has sparked a major constitutional discussion about how far the Court’s power goes when it’s giving legal advice—and whether that includes the power to undo its own rulings.
In other words, the President may consult the Court if there is a significant legal or constitutional question. The Court may express an opinion, but it is not binding, and the government is not required to follow it.
This is referred to as the Court’s “advisory role.” It is not meant to reverse or nullify earlier decisions, but rather to assist the government in navigating complex legal matters.
There are two parts to this Article. Under Article 143(1), the President can ask the Supreme Court for advice on any legal question that affects the public.
Article 143(2): The President must seek the Court’s opinion when questions arise relating to pre-constitutional treaties, agreements, or other matters covered by Article 131.
In both cases, the Supreme Court’s opinion is not binding on the President or the executive. This advisory jurisdiction is intended to help the executive branch seek clarity on complex constitutional or legal issues.
Advisory Opinion ≠ Judicial Review
The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that Article 143 does not confer appellate or review powers on the Court over its own judgments.
Advisory Opinion Is Not the Same as a Review or Appeal
When the President asks the Supreme Court for advice under Article 143, the Court gives an advisory opinion. This is very different from a judicial review or an appeal.
Simply put, an advisory opinion is just advice. The Supreme Court helps the government understand the law, but it doesn’t decide or solve a legal case when giving advice.
Because of this, the President can’t use Article 143 to ask the Court to change or cancel a past ruling. Doing that would mix up the roles of the government and the courts and weaken the Court’s power.
In fact, back in 1993 during the Cauvery Water Dispute, the Supreme Court clearly said it cannot use the advisory process to review or change its own decisions.
So, how does the Supreme Court overturn its previous rulings? That can only be done under Article 137. It permits the Court to review a case again if there is a good reason—such as a grave error or some new evidence.
This type of review is done according to strict guidelines and as part of the Court’s normal legal procedure. It only happens in special cases.
In short, if anyone wants to change a Supreme Court judgment, they have to follow the proper legal way under Article 137—not by asking the President to refer it under Article 143.
When Can the Supreme Court Review Its Own Decision?
The Supreme Court can look at a past judgment again only in special cases—for example:
- When new evidence is found that wasn’t available before,
- Or when there was a serious legal mistake in the earlier ruling.
- Also, only someone directly affected by a Supreme Court decision can ask for a review. The government or the President cannot do this by using Article 143 to ask for advice.
This rule is important because it protects the independence of the judiciary. It makes sure that political opinions or government pressure don’t interfere with what the Court has already decided. If a judgment truly needs to be changed, it has to be done through the proper legal process.
Why Is This in the News Right Now?
Recently, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that said Governors and the President should not delay decisions on bills passed by state legislatures. This judgment was intended to ensure significant legislation is not delayed unnecessarily.
The President has now requested advice from the Supreme Court on this judgment under Article 143.And yet, the wording of the questions submitted in the request appears to imply that the government might be seeking to overrule or water down that finding—without legal process.
But this type of advisory reference cannot be employed to reverse a final determination. The Supreme Court has made it clear in the past that it won’t review its own judgments this way.
This raises two important concerns:
- Can the Supreme Court Reopen Old Cases Just Because the President Asks for Advice?
Some important questions come up here:
- Can the Supreme Court revisit a case it already decided just because the President has asked for advice?
- Does this kind of request weaken the power of the Court’s past decisions?
The clear answer is: No.
CONCLUSION
In India, the three branches of government—the lawmakers, the executive (like the President), and the courts—all have their own separate jobs and powers.
Article 143 lets the Supreme Court give advice to the government on important legal questions. But this advice isn’t meant to fix or undo earlier court rulings.
It aids in maintaining the balance of the government’s powers and safeguarding the independence of the courts, a necessity for a healthy democracy. Article 143 is not intended to review or overturn Supreme Court rulings.
If the government, or anyone else, wish to appeal against a Supreme Court ruling, they must employ the proper legal channels, such as Article 137 or an ordinary judicial review. Applying Article 143 as a means of attempting to reverse a ruling is dangerous. It would be a bad precedent and would disrupt the harmony between the government and the courts.
About Author
Pragya Jakhar, a second-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Lovely Professional University, with a growing specialization in constitutional and human rights law. She is an emerging legal writer with a
strong interest in contemporary legal developments, judicial reforms, and access to justice. Pragya has authored several insightful articles analyzing critical legal issues and court judgments, reflecting her commitment to research-driven scholarship. With a keen understanding of both theoretical and procedural dimensions of law, she continues to contribute meaningfully to academic and policy discourse in the legal field.