Q. Although the Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of a “Distinguished Jurist” as the judge of the Supreme Court has remained unused...

Q. Although the Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of a “Distinguished Jurist” as the judge of the Supreme Court has remained unused till date. Discuss its potential to diversify the judiciary and enrich constitutional adjudication.

Question

Q. Although the Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of a “Distinguished Jurist” as the judge of the Supreme Court has remained unused till date. Discuss its potential to diversify the judiciary and enrich constitutional adjudication. (15 marks 250 Words)

Model Answer

Q. Although the Indian Constitution provides for the appointment of a “Distinguished Jurist” as the judge of the Supreme Court has remained unused till date. Discuss its potential to diversify the judiciary and enrich constitutional adjudication. (15 marks 250 Words)

Paper

GS II

Subject

Indian Polity

Syllabus as Per Notification

Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Topic

Appointment of Distinguished Jurists to the Supreme Court

Approach:

Introduction

Introduce with the Constitutional provision of appointing Distinguished jurists to the Supreme Court.

Body

Give brief context on the Constitutional provisions w.r.t Appointing Judges to the Supreme Court.

Diversifying the Bench to Enrich Constitutional Adjudication

Broadening the recruitment pool beyond Bench and Bar, bringing deeper constitutional and jurisprudential reasoning, moving beyond narrow technicalities in public-law cases, strengthening interdisciplinary adjudication, Enhancing comparative constitutional learning.

Constraints in Realising its Potential

Undefined standard, Academia–Bar disconnect, Concerns over practical experience, Institutional and procedural hesitation

Way Forward

Objective benchmarks, bridging scholarship and practice, creating an experiential pathway, Adopting global best practices.

Conclusion

Conclude by emphasising with clear standards and an appropriate institutional pathway, appointing eminent jurists can transform unused constitutional possibility into an instrument of judicial renewal.

Context

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pointed to Article 124(3), which allows the appointment of a “distinguished jurist” as a Supreme Court judge, and called it an “unused mandate” of the Constitution.

Introduction

Article 124(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution enables the appointment of a citizen who, in the opinion of the President, is a “distinguished jurist”, as a Supreme Court judge. Yet, this provision has remained unused. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently described it as an “unused mandate” of the Constitution that “needs our serious attention,” highlighting its potential to diversify the Bench and enrich constitutional adjudication.

A “distinguished jurist’ is generally understood to be anyone engaged in serious work in the practice, teaching or research of law, including those who do not require courtroom experience to fit the description.

Body

Constitution provisions w.r.t Appointing Judges to the Supreme Court

Article 124(3) lists who can be appointed as a judge.

A citizen of India

Who has served as a High Court judge for five years. (From the Bench) (Or)

Who practised as an advocate for ten years. (From the Bar) (Or)

A Distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. (Not explored till now)

Article 217 lays down the conditions for the appointment of a High Court judge.

42nd Amendment added a provision allowing the appointment of a “distinguished jurist” as a judge of the High Court. However, the provision was repealed by the 44th Amendment.

Diversifying the Bench to Enrich Constitutional Adjudication

Broadening the recruitment pool beyond Bench and Bar

Article 124(3)(c) creates independent eligibility route beyond conventional Bench–Bar, enabling Supreme Court to draw upon eminent jurists with outstanding legal and juristic learning.

Eminent legal academics and scholars can introduce professional and intellectual diversity, fulfilling H.V. Kamath vision of including those with outstanding legal and juristic learning.

Bringing deeper constitutional and jurisprudential reasoning

Distinguished jurists with expertise in constitutional theory, jurisprudence and legal philosophy can bring deeper, research-oriented perspectives to complex constitutional questions.

Constitution Benches can particularly benefit from specialised constitutional scholarship, strengthening constitutional interpretation and doctrinal development

Moving beyond narrow technicalities in public-law cases

Career litigation may favour a case-specific approach, while eminent jurists can bring broader constitutional and doctrinal perspectives on State power, rights and governance.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan argued that academic scholarship can prevent jurists from being constricted by narrow technicalities, strengthening their ability to address public-law issues.

Strengthening interdisciplinary adjudication

Contemporary constitutional disputes are intersect with AI, technology, privacy, environment and human rights.

Jurists with interdisciplinary expertise can supplement conventional judicial experience and help the Court address emerging and technically complex constitutional questions.

Enhancing comparative constitutional learning

Distinguished jurists can bring deeper comparative constitutional insights, enabling the Court to draw relevant lessons from global experiences while adapting them to Indian conditions.

Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard professor who became U.S. Supreme Court Justice, was cited as example during Constituent Assembly debates to support the inclusion of distinguished jurists.

Constraints in Realising its Potential

Undefined standard

The Constitution does not define “distinguished jurist”, leaving ambiguity and considerable scope for subjectivity in identifying eligible candidates.

Academia–Bar disconnect

Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules restricts full-time legal academics from practising as advocates, creating a scholarship–practice divide and narrowing the potential pool of distinguished jurists.

Concerns over practical experience

Critics question whether academics without substantial courtroom exposure can effectively transition to adjudication. However, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has described this objection as a shallow one.

Institutional and procedural hesitation

The Second and Third Judges Cases, followed by the NJAC judgment (2015), shaped the Collegium-based appointment framework, but no mechanism emerged to systematically identify and evaluate distinguished jurists.

Way Forward

Objective benchmarks: Establishing clear criteria for a “distinguished jurist” based on scholarly contribution, constitutional expertise and juristic influence.

Bridging scholarship and practice: Drawing from Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2018), which allowed MPs/MLAs to practise law, institutional mechanisms could enable distinguished academics to gain limited courtroom exposure, strengthening the academia–practice interface.

Creating an experiential pathway: Considering High Court-level distinguished-jurist route, enabling academics to gain judicial training and broader subject-matter exposure before elevation to the Supreme Court.

Adopting global best practices: Drawing from the USA, UK, Canada and Kenya, where legal academics have served on constitutional courts, demonstrating that scholarly expertise can complement judicial experience.

Conclusion

As emphasised by constitutional scholar D.D. Basu, bringing academic jurists of the right calibre into the highest court would enrich it. Realising this vision can make Article 124(3)(c) a meaningful constitutional instrument for broadening the intellectual foundations of the judiciary, promoting better constitutional understanding and strengthening its capacity to address the evolving challenges of India’s constitutional democracy.