Criticism
Turning the Supreme Court into a consulting section of the Executive Organ, is undesirable, according to some political theorists and famous jurists. They argued that courts were created to address legal concerns and that rather than expressing opinions, they should give judgments. As a result, they should not offer an opinion unless the subject is brought up in court. Furthermore, they believe that by expressing an opinion on abstract topics, future legal interests may be jeopardized.
Any legal or factual problem may be referred to the Supreme Court for advice by the President. When the Supreme Court is presented with a political issue, the court becomes involved in politics. This is hardly encouraging for a democracy attempting to create the concept of judicial independence. The advisory jurisdiction does not constrain the President, which is incompatible with and disrespectful of the Supreme Court’s status.
Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is required when a subordinate court or a constitutional authority requests the opinion of the higher court on a legal issue. The term advisory opinion describes the judge’s view of the court. The basis of jurisdiction has been established by a legal matter raised by the legislative body or public bodies. As mentioned, the Indian Supreme Court now has advisory authority in accordance with Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. The fundamental idea behind this jurisdiction is that the Supreme Court can help the President with any case of public interest or law.
Table of Content
- What is the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
- Article 143
- Judicial Interpretation of Advisory Jurisdiction
- Landmark Judgments Under Advisory Jurisdiction
- Criticism