Why was the concept of Distinguished Jurist in news?
The term distinguished jurist has recently gained attention. Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan called for greater consideration of this constitutional route for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. He noted that Article 124(3)(c) specifically allows a distinguished jurist to become a Supreme Court judge. “However, India has not used this provision for over 76 years.
This article explains the meaning of this category of jurist. Moreover, it highlights the constitutional provision under Article 124(3)(c), the eligibility criteria for becoming a Supreme Court judge. Furthermore, it also discusses why this provision has remained unused in India for decades.
What Is a Distinguished Jurist?
- A distinguished jurist refers to a person with exceptional knowledge, scholarship and expertise in law and jurisprudence. Unlike the conventional routes to the Supreme Court, this category does not require the person to have served as a High Court judge or practised as an advocate for a specified period.
- However, the Constitution does not provide a precise definition. Article 124(3)(c) simply states that a person can qualify if they are, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Thus, the provision creates a constitutional avenue for bringing eminent legal scholars and jurists into the Supreme Court.
What is the Process of Appointing a Supreme Court Judge?
Article 124 of Indian Constitution deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court. Article 124(3) specifies the qualifications for appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
A person must be an Indian citizen and satisfy one of three conditions:
- They must have served as a High Court judge for at least five years.
- Alternatively, they must have been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years.
- Finally, they may qualify if they are, in the President’s opinion, a distinguished jurist.
The third route therefore differs significantly from the first two. It creates space for eminent legal academics and scholars who may not have followed a conventional judicial or courtroom career.
Why Was the Provision Included?
The idea emerged during the Constituent Assembly debates.
- On May 24, 1949, H. V. Kamath proposed that the pool of Supreme Court judges should not remain confined to judges and advocates. He argued that India could benefit from people possessing outstanding legal and juristic knowledge, even if they had never practised law.
- M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar also supported the proposal. He argued that constitutional questions require specialised understanding that practising lawyers may not always encounter.
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar did not oppose the concept. However, he questioned the use of the word “distinguished” and considered whether another term such as “eminent” might be more appropriate. The provision ultimately became part of Article 124(3).
What are the Constitutional Provisions of Distinguished Jurists?
- Firstly, Article 124(3)(c) (Supreme Court): The Constitution allows the appointment of this category of jurist as a Supreme Court judge. Under this provision, a citizen of India becomes eligible if the President considers so.
- Furthermore, Article 217 (High Courts): The Constitution originally did not provide this route for appointing High Court judges.
- However, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 introduced a similar provision for High Court appointments.
- Subsequently, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 repealed this provision, removing this route for High Court appointments.
Distinguished Jurist and Supreme Court Appointments
The constitutional provision has remained unused since the Constitution came into force.
- According available records, no person has been appointed to the Supreme Court through this route in more than 76 years. Supreme Court judges have instead come through the High Court judiciary or the practising Bar.
- This makes this provision unusual because the Constitution expressly permits the route, but institutional practice has never used it.
- Under the present collegium system, Supreme Court appointments are initiated through recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium. Therefore, the practical use of Article 124(3)(c) would require the collegium to consider and recommend an eligible jurist.
Why Has India Never Appointed a Distinguished Jurist?
Article 124(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution allows the appointment of this category of jurist as a Supreme Court judge. However, India has never used this provision since the Constitution came into force.
Moreover, the traditional routes of appointing Supreme Court judges have remained the preferred methods. India has mainly appointed judges from the High Court judiciary and experienced advocates from the Bar.
- The Constitution does not clearly define the term. Moreover, it does not specify detailed eligibility criteria for this category. This lack of a precise definition has created uncertainty.
- Secondly, the judicial appointment process has generally focused on candidates with practical courtroom experience. Therefore, legal scholars and academic experts without judicial experience have rarely been considered.
- Another reason is that the existing collegium system has evolved around appointing judges with experience in judicial service and legal practice. It didn’t give emphasis on constitutional scholars or jurists from academia.
- Moreover, this route may face challenges in assessing expertise and suitability for the responsibilities of SC Judges.
Consequently, despite the constitutional provision existing for more than 76 years, India has continued to rely on conventional sources of judicial appointments.
However, recent discussions have renewed interest in this provision, as appointing distinguished legal experts could bring diverse perspectives, academic depth and specialised knowledge to the Supreme Court.
What Could a Distinguished Jurist Bring to the Supreme Court?
He could bring a strong academic and theoretical perspective to constitutional adjudication.
- For instance, a scholar with expertise in constitutional law could contribute deeper perspectives on Constitutional interpretation. Moreover, they could provide deeper understanding on Fundamental rights, Federalism, Separation of powers and other Administrative and Public law.
- Moreover, Justice Bhuyan argued that such judges could approach complex public-law questions without being overly constrained by narrow technical considerations. Furthermore, greater participation from legal academia could diversify the Supreme Court Bench and strengthen its decision-making.
What are the Differences between Distinguished Jurist and Conventional Supreme Court Judge?
| Basis | Conventional Route | Distinguished Jurist Route |
| Constitutional provision | Article 124(3)(a) or 124(3)(b) | Article 124(3)(c) |
| Background | High Court judge or advocate | Eminent legal scholar/jurist |
| Judicial experience | Required under the first route | Not expressly required |
| Legal practice | Required under the second route | Not expressly required |
| Key emphasis | Judicial or professional experience | Exceptional legal and juristic scholarship |
| Use in India | Routinely used | Never used so far |
Why Is the Debate Important?
- The debate over this category of jurist raises broader questions about the composition and diversity of India’s higher judiciary.
- On one hand, practising lawyers and judges bring extensive courtroom and judicial experience. On the other hand, legal scholars can contribute specialised knowledge, comparative perspectives and deeper engagement with constitutional theory.
- Therefore, appointment of SC Judges though this route could potentially broaden the intellectual diversity of the Supreme Court.
At the same time, India must establish transparent and objective criteria for identifying such jurists. Since the Constitution does not define the term precisely, the selection process could otherwise raise questions about subjectivity and institutional discretion.
Conclusion
This provision reflects the Constitution’s attempt to create a wider pool of expertise for the Supreme Court. Although Article 124(3)(c) has existed since the Constitution came into force, India has never appointed a Supreme Court judge through this route. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s recent remarks have therefore revived an important constitutional debate. Ultimately, greater representation of legal scholarship could enrich judicial decision-making.
Read More:
Source:
Frequently Asked Question
1. What is a distinguished jurist under Article 124(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution?
A distinguished jurist refers to a person with exceptional knowledge, expertise and scholarship in law and jurisprudence. Under Article 124(3)(c), the President can appoint such a person as a Supreme Court judge if he considers so.
2. Why has India never appointed a Supreme Court judge through the distinguished jurist route?
Although Article 124(3)(c) allows the appointment of judge through this route, India has not used this provision for over 76 years. Moreover, Supreme Court appointments have traditionally followed the routes of High Court judges and experienced advocates.
3. What are the three qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court judge in India?
A person can become a Supreme Court judge if they have served as a High Court judge for five years, practised as a High Court advocate for ten years, or are considered a distinguished jurist by the President under Article 124(3)(c).
