When should the Supreme Court decide a constitutional reference even if the underlying dispute has become moot? Illustrate with recent examples.

A dispute is moot when the court's answer can no longer change anything for the parties. Courts normally decline such "academic exercises". Some references, however, raise questions larger than the dispute that produced them. In those cases, answering them serves the Constitution itself.

Why restraint is the default

• No live facts: without a real controversy, a ruling risks becoming a general lecture rather than a decision.
• Scarce judicial time: CJI Surya Kant declined a "prolonged academic exercise" while part-heard matters remained pending [1].

When the Court should decide despite mootness

• The question is structural and will recur: legislative privileges under Arts. 105/194 are still uncodified. In effect, House of Commons precedents still apply, so any House can use the same power again [2][3].
• Fundamental Rights are being chilled: uncertainty alone discourages speech under Art. 19(1)(a). A threat of arrest silences the press even if it is later withdrawn.
• Withdrawal is used to escape review: a party should not avoid a ruling simply by withdrawing its action after the case is filed.
• No other forum will settle it: the Lok Sabha Committee on Privileges rejected codification in 2008 [2].
• The question goes to the core of constitutional machinery: federal or institutional design questions need authoritative answers.

Recent illustrations

• Legislative privilege vs free speech (2026): a seven-judge Bench was formed over the 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution to arrest editors of The Hindu. The Assembly argued that withdrawal of the resolution in 2004 made the reference academic, and the Bench signalled it would not hear it on merits. The petitioners replied that the Tamil Nadu dispute "may be dead" but the larger question is "very much alive" [1].
• Presidential Reference on assent to Bills (2025): Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala raised preliminary objections to maintainability. The Court rejected them because the issues concerned "the very core and foundational modalities of the constitutional machinery", and it gave its opinion [4].

Mootness should therefore be a rule of prudence, not a bar. Where a question will recur, chills rights, escapes review or is foundational, the Court should decide it. If it declines, it should at least record that the issue remains open for the next live case. This keeps constitutional law clear and protects the Court's role as guardian of Part III.