SC Judge Questions Why No 'Distinguished Jurist' Has Been Appointed in 76 Years
· India · Hindustan Times, Times of India
Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday asked why Article 124(3) of the Constitution, which permits the appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' to the apex court, has been invoked in over 76 years. The provision, which lists three categories of eligible appointees—judges of high courts, advocates with 10 years of standing, and distinguished jurists—has excluded legal academics entirely. Speaking at the 13th convocation of the National Law University, Delhi's LL.M. programme, Justice Bhuyan suggested two possible reasons: either Indian legal academia has lacked sufficient depth or the Centre and the collegium have not seriously explored the option. He cited the Constituent Assembly debates where members like HV Kamath and M Ananthasayanam Ayyangar advocated opening the field beyond judges and advocates, noting that Ayyangar had proposed a distinguished jurist could be a law professor or dean. Justice Bhuyan dismissed the argument that academics lack practical experience, emph
Why it matters
This judicial observation puts pressure on the executive and the collegium to justify the non-use of Article 124(3), potentially affecting the eligibility of legal scholars for future Supreme Court appointments and reshaping the composition of India's highest court. It also raises questions about the balance between judicial experience and academic expertise in constitutional decision-making.
Read the original report — Hindustan Times
Join us on Telegram
Breaking news the moment it lands. At 10,000 members we ship the Android app.