India’s legal landscape has taken an interesting turn as President Droupadi Murmu has officially sought the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a matter of deep constitutional significance. The question revolves around the highest court’s ability to overturn its own past judgments a topic that goes to the heart of judicial accountability, the principle of precedent, and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation in India.
Let’s unpack what this development means, the advisory role of the Supreme Court, and how it could impact the future of Indian jurisprudence.
What Is the Supreme Court’s Advisory Role?
President Droupadi Murmu, Before we dive into the specifics of the current issue, it’s essential to understand what the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court entails.
Article 143 of the Constitution Under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, the President of India has the power to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on any question of law or fact of public importance.
There are two types of references under Article 143:
- Article 143(1) – Discretionary advisory opinion on matters of public importance.
- Article 143(2) – Mandatory consultation when there’s a dispute arising out of pre-constitutional treaties or agreements.
While the opinion given by the Supreme Court is not binding, it carries immense legal and moral authority.
What Is the Issue at Hand?
President Droupadi Murmu has referred a case to the Supreme Court asking for clarity on whether the apex court has the authority to review or overturn its own earlier rulings, particularly those that may have stood the test of time but now appear inconsistent with modern interpretations of the law.
This question has become especially relevant in light of several landmark judgments over the years that have either:
- Been reversed, such as in the Right to Privacy case (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy), which overturned previous rulings that said privacy was not a fundamental right, or
- Remained controversial, such as the ADM Jabalpur case (1976), where the court ruled that fundamental rights could be suspended during an emergency.
The core issue: Should the Supreme Court have the power to revisit and potentially reverse its own past decisions if they are found flawed or incompatible with constitutional morality today?
Why This Matters
In India, as in most common law countries, the doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) is fundamental to judicial practice. It provides consistency and predictability to the law.
However, judicial precedents are not set in stone. Over the years, courts have evolved the law by overruling past decisions, particularly when:
- Society’s values have changed, or
- Previous rulings were unjust, unreasonable, or unconstitutional.
Hence, the President’s move to formally seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion is not just a legal inquiry it’s a philosophical and constitutional debate about how rigid or flexible our highest court should be.
Notable Cases That Shaped the Debate
President Droupadi Murmu, Here are some historic cases that showcase how the Supreme Court has engaged with its own past decisions:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This landmark case laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It also overturned earlier rulings like Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) by declaring the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.
3. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
This ruling decriminalized homosexuality by partially striking down Section 377 of the IPC and overturned the 2013 Suresh Koushal judgment.
These examples show that judicial self-correction is not uncommon and sometimes, absolutely necessary.
The Significance of President Murmu’s Reference
President Droupadi Murmu, This move is significant for several reasons:
1. Reinforces the Consultative Power of the President
While Article 143 has been used sparingly, President Murmu’s step affirms that the executive can engage with the judiciary on complex legal questions.
2. Clarifies Limits and Powers of the Judiciary
An official advisory from the Supreme Court will help clear the air on the extent to which it can revisit its decisions, especially in constitutional matters.
3. Strengthens Democratic Values
It shows India’s commitment to constitutionalism, transparency, and evolving legal frameworks that reflect current realities.
Possible Outcomes and Implications
Depending on how the Supreme Court responds, we might see:
- Greater flexibility for the judiciary to evolve with time and correct past mistakes.
- A framework or guidelines on when and how previous decisions may be overturned.
- A balanced approach where judicial discipline and evolving jurisprudence coexist.
President Droupadi Murmu, It could also pave the way for re-examination of long-standing rulings that are now seen as incompatible with today’s understanding of human rights, dignity, and justice.
A Landmark Moment in Indian Legal History
President Droupadi Murmu’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 reflects the maturity of India’s democratic institutions. It brings into sharp focus the dynamic nature of the Constitution, the responsibility of the judiciary, and the need for legal systems to evolve with changing societal norms.
While the advisory opinion will not be binding, it will serve as a guiding light for future benches, lawyers, scholars, and citizens. It reaffirms that no precedent is too sacred to be questioned, especially if justice demands a second look.
