Whether an advisory opinion given by the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution of India is a binding precedent involves a distinction between constitutional theory and judicial practice:
The Theoretical View: Theoretically, it can be argued that an advisory opinion is not strictly binding because it does not amount to a proper judicial adjudication, as there are no disputing parties before the Court. In some earlier cases (such as the UP Legislative Assembly and St Xaviers College cases), the Supreme Court expressed the view that advisory opinions do not have the formal force of law, although Chief Justice Ray noted they are still "entitled to great weight".
The Practical View: In practice, however, stating that an advisory opinion is not binding is considered a "technical view". Lower courts generally regard advisory opinions as having the same efficacy, authority, and value as regular Supreme Court judgments. Because the Supreme Court clarifies difficult constitutional points in these references, lower courts take note of them and apply the law accordingly. In fact, some High Courts have explicitly taken the view that an advisory opinion is "law declared by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141," making it a binding precedent.
The Supreme Court's Stance: The Supreme Court has expressed that while it is always open to the Apex Court itself to re-examine or overrule the question, "in so far as all other courts are concerned they ought to be bound by it". In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal reference, the Supreme Court was specifically asked to decide if an advisory opinion is definitively binding on all courts. The Court refused to give a definitive answer at the time, stating instead: "It has been held adjudicatively that the advisory opinion is entitled to due weight and respect and normally it will be followed".
Federal Court Precedent: Historically, the Federal Court (the predecessor to the Supreme Court) also asserted that its advisory opinions were not to be treated as any less binding simply on account of being advisory.
In short, while there is a theoretical debate about its formal status under Article 141, for all practical purposes and for all lower courts, an advisory opinion under Article 143 operates as a highly authoritative and effectively binding precedent.
Disclaimer: This article is written by using inputs from AI research tools.