Whether Advisory Jurisdiction of Supreme Court is binding on Courts? Mr. Amaresh Patel Jurisdiction Tue, Dec 14, 2021, at ,08:12 PM Whether Advisory Jurisdiction of Supreme Court is binding on Courts? There are conflicting authorities on this question. An authoritative answer from the Supreme Court is still awaited. In re allocation of Lands and Building and in re levy of Estate Duty the Federal Court held that advisory opinions do not have binding force of law. In Attorney General far. Ontario v. Attorney General for Canada the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council went to the extent of saying that opinions expressed in advisory jurisdiction will have no more affect than the opinions of the law officers. Some observations in the Supreme Court's judgment in U. P. Legislature Case and St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat are also relied upon for the view that advisory opinion is not binding as law declared under Article 141. But in the Province of Madras v. M/s. Boddu Paidanna and Sons Federal Court held that advisory opinion given by it in the Central Provinces Case was binding. In Ram Kishwre Ser v. Union of India the High Court of Calcutta held that opinion given by Supreme Court under Article 143 is binding as law declared by it under Article 141. In Chhabidas Mehtà v. Legislative Assembly of Gujarat State Chief Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Bench observed: "It is no doubt true that the majority opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 but we do not see why on that account it ceases to be law declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141. The Constitution has conferred diverse jurisdiction on the. Supreme Court. There is the original jurisdiction under Article 131; then there is the appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133, 134 and 136; there is also writ jurisdiction under Article 32; and lastly, there is advisory jurisdiction under Article 143. A point of law may arise for consideration in any of these jurisdictions and where such point of law is considered and the Supreme Court expresses what in its considered view is the correct position in regard to such point of law, it is clearly and indubitably a declaration of law by the Supreme Court. It is not material which jurisdiction provides the occasion for declaration of the law." His lordship said that the word "declared" in Article 141 should be given its plain natural meaning and so construed it has a wide connotation. In Hardwari Lal v. Election Commission of India the Punjab High Court following Chhabidas Mehta's case held that advisory opinions under. Article 143 are law declared under Article 141 and, therefore, binding. The question came to be considered by the Supreme Court in a reference case regarding Special Courts Bill and speaking for majority Chandrachud C. J. observed: "We are inclined to the view that though it is always open to this Court io re-examine the question already decided by it and to overrule, if necessary, the view earlier taken by it, in so far as all other Courts in the territory of India are concerned they ought to be bound by the view expressed by this Court even in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution.” This opinion of the Supreme Court cannot be treated as authoritative on this point for the following reasons:1. The opinion is not categorical. The Chief Justice himself said that the question may be more fully considered on a future occasion.2. The above opinion is itself expressed in exercise of advisory jurisdiction. This question was again left open by the Supreme Court in the matter of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal on two grounds;1. That the question was not in terms, of reference.2. That opinion expressed by it in this case will again the advisory. However, there is sufficient reasons in favour or the view that opinion rendered by the Supreme Court may be treated as law declared by it under Article 141.The following points may be particularly noted to include advisory opinion by the Supreme Court. 1. The word “declared” in Article 141 is wide enough in its natural meaning to include advisory opinion by the Supreme Court.2. The cases under Canadian or American Constitution. cannot be treated as authoritative because Ill the Constitutions of these countess there is no provision parallel to Article 141.3. The Supreme Court is not bound to give opinion under Article 143 (1) but once it gives opinion its pronouncement on a point of law is nothing less than declaration of law under Article 141.4. Doubtful questions of law are referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 to clarify the law and avoid unnecessary litigation. If the courts: in the country are free not to follow the advisory opinion and make their own assessments the very purpose for which the opinion was taken will be defeated, because different interpretations by various courts will perpetuate the confusion;5. When the Supreme Court has to render advisory opinion under Article 143 the matter is considered by the Bench of not less than five judges and the experience shows that the Court issues notice to all interested. parties and hears everyone who desires to be heard. It follows almost the same procedure as in exercise of original jurisdiction and gives its to bind none it will amount to exercise in futility, knowledge of not only money and labour on the part of the State and other. interested persons but also precious time of the highest Court of the country which is already overburdened.6. It is also illogical to treat an ex parte judgment in actual dispute as binding but such well considered opinion as not binding on any Court.