Whatever the Supreme Court says in an Article 143 opinion is a binding law just like a regular judgment.

Courts have held that opinions given under Article 143(1) are advisory and not binding precedent under Article 141, though they usually carry strong persuasive authority.

The Supreme Court must always answer whatever question the President refers to it.

Under clause (1), the Court has discretion to decline to answer; only under clause (2), for the specific category of disputes tied to Article 131's proviso, is the Court obligated to give an opinion.

The Constitution of India

Article 143

Power of President to consult Supreme Court

(1) If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.§

(2) The President may, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to article 131, refer a dispute of the kind mentioned in the said proviso to the Supreme Court for opinion and the Supreme Court shall, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.§

Why this exists

The framers wanted a mechanism for the executive to get authoritative legal guidance on difficult or sensitive constitutional and legal questions before they became full-blown disputes or crises, without waiting for an actual case to be litigated. It also plugged a gap: Article 131's proviso keeps certain pre-Constitution treaty-based disputes out of the Supreme Court's ordinary original jurisdiction, so clause (2) ensures such disputes can still reach the Court, but this time as a mandatory reference rather than discretionary.

How courts read it

In In re Kerala Education Bill (1958) and later cases, the Supreme Court held that its advisory opinion under Article 143 is not legally binding like a normal judgment under Article 141, though it carries great persuasive weight. In In re Special Courts Bill (1978) and the Cauvery Water Disputes reference (1993), the Court clarified the scope of its advisory role. Most notably, in the Ayodhya-related Ismail Faruqui reference (In re Ayodhya, 1993) and the 2G Spectrum Presidential Reference (Special Reference No. 1 of 2012), the Court held it can decline to answer a reference if the question is purely political, has no real legal content, or would need it to re-examine one of its own binding decisions, and confirmed that clause (1) opinions are advisory only, while clause (2) references must be answered.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Whatever the Supreme Court says in an Article 143 opinion is a binding law just like a regular judgment.
Fact: Courts have held that opinions given under Article 143(1) are advisory and not binding precedent under Article 141, though they usually carry strong persuasive authority.
Myth: The Supreme Court must always answer whatever question the President refers to it.
Fact: Under clause (1), the Court has discretion to decline to answer; only under clause (2), for the specific category of disputes tied to Article 131's proviso, is the Court obligated to give an opinion.