Distinguished Jurist Route Remains Unused for Supreme Court

Why in the News ?

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has highlighted the prolonged non-use of Article 124(3), which permits appointment of a “distinguished jurist” directly as a Supreme Court judge. He called the provision an unused constitutional mandate requiring serious consideration.

Constitutional Provision and Appointment Routes

●     Article 124(3) provides three eligibility routes for appointment as a Supreme Court judge: serving as a High Court judge for five years, practising as an advocate for ten years, or being considered a distinguished jurist by the President.

●     Existing practice: The first two routes have traditionally supplied the Supreme Court Bench, with most judges elevated from High Courts and a smaller number appointed directly from the Bar.

●     Unused category: The distinguished jurist route has never been utilised since the Constitution came into force, despite being explicitly incorporated into the constitutional framework.

●     Constituent vision: During the Constituent Assembly debates, members such as H.V. Kamath and M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar supported expanding judicial appointments beyond practising judges and advocates.

●     Ambedkar’s view: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar did not oppose the idea but expressed reservations regarding the term “distinguished”, leaving the final formulation to the Drafting Committee.

●     Meaning: A distinguished jurist could broadly include a person recognised for outstanding legal scholarship, teaching, research or jurisprudence, even without extensive courtroom practice.

Why the Provision Remains Unused

●     Academic depth: One possible explanation is the perception that Indian legal academia has not produced sufficient numbers of scholars possessing the depth and stature considered appropriate for the Supreme Court.

●     Institutional hesitation: Justice Bhuyan suggested that governments and the collegium may simply not have seriously explored this constitutional route.

●     Eligibility dilemma: Full-time law teachers generally face Bar Council restrictions on legal practice, creating a structural separation between academic scholarship and courtroom experience.

●     Bench diversification: Bringing distinguished jurists into the Supreme Court could introduce interdisciplinary scholarship, comparative constitutional knowledge and broader public-law perspectives.

●     Institutional balance: The debate raises questions about how to reconcile academic excellence, practical legal experience, judicial independence and constitutional legitimacy.

●     Constitutional potential: Reviving the provision could expand the talent pool for the Supreme Court while fulfilling an explicit constitutional vision that has remained dormant for decades.

 About Supreme Court and Judicial Appointments:

●     Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court of India and lays down the constitutional framework concerning its judges.

●     Qualification: A candidate must be an Indian citizen and satisfy one of the prescribed constitutional qualifications relating to High Court service, advocacy or distinguished legal scholarship.

●     Collegium System: In contemporary practice, Supreme Court appointments are initiated through the Supreme Court Collegium, which recommends candidates to the government.

●     Judicial expertise: Justice Bhuyan argued that distinguished jurists could diversify the Bench, strengthen constitutional interpretation and contribute deeper academic perspectives to public-law questions.

●     High Court provision: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment introduced a similar distinguished-jurist provision for High Court appointments, but it was subsequently removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment.

●     International comparison: Countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Kenya have appointed judges with substantial academic or juristic backgrounds to constitutional courts.