Discuss the unused constitutional provision for appointing 'distinguished jurists' to the Supreme Court. Should this route be operationalised, and what would be its implications for judicial diversity?

Article 124(3)(c) permits the President to appoint as a Supreme Court judge any citizen who is, in the President's opinion, a distinguished jurist — a third route alongside High Court judges and advocates [1]. It has never been invoked in over 76 years, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's recent call to bring "brilliant minds" from legal academia to the Bench has revived the debate [4].

Why the provision lies dormant

• The Memorandum of Procedure structures appointments around serving High Court judges and senior advocates, leaving no worked-out channel for jurists [2].
• After the NJAC verdict (2015) restored the collegium, sourcing remained judiciary-led and largely self-referential [3].
• "Distinguished jurist" is undefined, so no institution owns the task of identifying one [1].

The case for operationalising it

• It gives effect to explicit constitutional text, rather than allowing convention to erase a founders' choice [1].
• Academia offers doctrinal depth in constitutional, environmental and technology law, where litigation experience alone is insufficient.
• It widens a shrinking talent pool at a time of persistent vacancies in the higher judiciary [2].

Legitimate concerns

• Absence of adjudicatory experience and judicial temperament tested in court.
• The subjective "opinion of the President" invites executive discretion and patronage unless criteria are laid down.
• Risk of collegium-executive friction over who qualifies.

Implications for judicial diversity

• Legal academia has a broader presence of women, SC/ST and first-generation lawyers than the senior bar, easing a structural bottleneck.
• Diversity of intellectual perspective — scholars of gender, labour and federalism — enriches constitutional reasoning [4].

The provision should be operationalised, but through rules rather than improvisation: transparent eligibility criteria and a published shortlist within the collegium framework, with the appointee's academic record open to scrutiny. Used sparingly and reasoned publicly, this dormant clause can make the Court more representative and its reasoning more plural — advancing the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity in public employment.