Distinguished Jurist: The Unused Route to Appoint an SC Judge

Key Highlights & Summary

 • Justice Bhuyan\'s Remark on Article 124(3): Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted Article 124(3) as an \'unused mandate\' of the Constitution, emphasizing that appointing a \'distinguished jurist\' would diversify the Bench and strengthen public law adjudication.

 • Three Routes of SC Appointment: Under Article 124(3), a person qualifies for SC judge appointment if they have been a High Court judge for 5 years, a practising HC advocate for 10 years, or are, in the President\'s opinion, a \'distinguished jurist\'. While direct Bar elevations occur—such as Justice V. Mohana in June 2026—the jurist route remains completely unutilized. 

• Constituent Assembly Intent: Introduced on May 24, 1949, via an amendment by H.V. Kamath, the clause aimed to broaden the pool beyond advocates to scholars, drawing parallels with International Court of Justice appointments and US Supreme Court academic elevations. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar accepted the principle while considering \'eminent\' as an alternative term. 

• Historical Attempt at High Court Level: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act added a similar provision to Article 217 for High Courts, but it was subsequently repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act. 

• Obstacles to Elevation: Institutional factors including perceived lack of depth in legal academia, Bar Council rules barring full-time law professors from practising, and Collegium reliance on traditional judicial streams have rendered the clause dormant. 

• Judicial Perspectives: Legal scholar Upendra Baxi noted that Presidents have failed to find jurists through this route, describing the provision as a \'dead issue,\' whereas Justice Bhuyan urged active exploration by both the Collegium and the Executive. 

Essential Definitions

 • Distinguished Jurist: An eminent scholar, academic, or researcher engaged in deep legal study who possesses exceptional juristic learning without necessarily having courtroom advocacy experience. 

• Collegium System: The judicial forum comprising the Chief Justice of India and senior SC judges that initiates appointments and transfers of judges in the higher judiciary.

 Legal and Constitutional Framework 

• Article 124(3)(c) of the Constitution: Explicitly empowers the President to appoint a citizen who is a \'distinguished jurist\' as a Supreme Court Judge. 

• Article 217 (Historical Amendment): Formerly contained a parallel provision for High Courts under the 42nd Amendment, later removed by the 44th Amendment.

 • Bar Council of India Rules: Restricts full-time legal academics from active courtroom practice, creating institutional barriers for scholars entering judicial roles. Conclusion The failure to appoint a distinguished jurist reflects a persistent reliance on conventional judicial pipelines. Activating Article 124(3)(c) would bridge the gap between academic legal scholarship and judicial decision-making, enriching constitutional jurisprudence and expanding the perspective of the apex bench. 

UPSC Relevance 

• GS Paper II (Polity & Governance): Highly relevant for questions on judicial appointments, constitutional provisions (Article 124), Supreme Court composition, and judicial reforms.

 • Mains Application: Serves as strong analytical material for debates surrounding Collegium recommendations, legal academia\'s role in governance, and institutional diversity in the higher judiciary.