Can jurists be appointed as Supreme Court judges?

1. At a Glance

• Article 124(3) of the Constitution provides three routes to a Supreme Court judgeship: (i) HC judge for ≥5 years, (ii) HC advocate for ≥10 years, or (iii) a "distinguished jurist" in the President's opinion [1].
• The "distinguished jurist" route has never been used since 1950 — over 76 years — making it a constitutional provision that exists only on paper [1].
• UPSC relevance: tests both Polity (Judiciary, Art. 124) static knowledge and Constituent Assembly debate trivia, plus a live "why unused" analytical angle for Mains.

2. Why in the News

• On 31 August 2026 (Sunday), Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, addressing the 13th convocation of the LL.M. programme at National Law University, Delhi, questioned why the "distinguished jurist" provision under Article 124(3) has remained unused for over 76 years [1].
• He noted no legal academic has ever been elevated to the Supreme Court through this route [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• The "distinguished jurist" category was inserted into the Constituent Assembly draft on 24 May 1949, on a motion moved by H.V. Kamath, who argued the talent pool for SC judgeship should not be "confined to Judges or Advocates" [1].
• Kamath contended the category would widen the candidate pool to include persons of "outstanding legal and juristic learning" [1].
• B.R. Ambedkar did not oppose the clause in principle; he only questioned whether "eminent" was a more apt word than "distinguished," leaving the final phrasing to the Drafting Committee [1].
• The clause was retained and now forms Article 124(3)(c) of the Constitution, in force since 26 January 1950, but has remained dormant ever since [1].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The clause is enabling, not mandatory — it says the President "may" consider a distinguished jurist, giving no binding push toward using it [1].
• Absence of a statutory or constitutional definition/criteria for "distinguished jurist" creates ambiguity, arguably deterring its invocation [1].
• The provision sits alongside the collegium system for judicial appointments, which has institutionally evolved around serving judges/practising advocates, sidelining academic-track candidates.

Historical

• Framers in 1949 explicitly intended a third, non-conventional pathway to the apex court beyond judicial service and legal practice [1].
• Despite deliberate constitutional design, 76+ years of executive/collegium practice never operationalised it [1] — a classic "living Constitution vs. dead-letter clause" example.

Governance / Ethical

• Raises questions on institutional openness of the judiciary to legal academia and scholarship, versus a closed pipeline of judges/advocates.
• A sitting SC judge publicly flagging this (2026) signals internal introspection within the judiciary about diversifying appointment pathways.

Administrative

• No mechanism or committee exists to identify or nominate "distinguished jurists," unlike the structured HC-judge/advocate routes — a practical implementation bottleneck.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 31 August 2026: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan publicly questions the non-use of Article 124(3)'s jurist clause at NLU Delhi's LL.M. convocation [1].
• 3 September 2026: The Hindu carries an explainer analysing the provision's history and non-use [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Article 124(3) lists three eligibility routes for SC judge appointment [1].
• Route 1: HC judge for ≥5 years; Route 2: HC advocate for ≥10 years; Route 3: "distinguished jurist" (President's opinion) [1].
• The Constitution does not define "distinguished jurist" or prescribe a minimum experience period for this category [1].
• No person has ever been appointed SC judge under the "distinguished jurist" clause since 1950 [1].
• The clause was introduced in the Constituent Assembly on 24 May 1949 via a motion by H.V. Kamath [1].
• B.R. Ambedkar debated the word choice ("eminent" vs "distinguished") but did not oppose the clause [1].
• The term "distinguished jurist" also appears in the judge-removal inquiry committee composition under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 [2].
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised this issue at NLU Delhi's 13th convocation of its LL.M. programme, 31 August 2026 [1].
• The provision is officially Article 124(3)(c) of the Constitution.
• Article 124 as a whole deals with the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II (Polity & Governance) — Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary; appointment of judges.
• Syllabus heading: "Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies."
• Possible question stems: 1. Discuss why the 'distinguished jurist' route for appointment to the Supreme Court under Article 124(3) has remained unutilised despite being part of the original constitutional scheme. Suggest reforms. 2. Critically examine the collegium system's tendency to favour conventional judicial/advocate pathways over the constitutionally envisaged route of eminent jurists to the Supreme Court. 3. Constituent Assembly debates reflect a deliberate widening of the talent pool for the higher judiciary. Assess whether this intent has been realised in practice.

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Collegium System & NJAC case (2015) — governs actual practice of SC judge appointments, explains why alternate routes are sidelined.
• Article 124 (full text) — composition, qualifications, and removal of SC judges.
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — reuses the "distinguished jurist" term in the judge-removal process.
• Constituent Assembly Debates (1946-49) — broader context on judiciary design choices.
• Comparative judicial appointment systems (e.g., US Supreme Court nominations, UK Judicial Appointments Commission) — for comparative Mains answers.
• Judicial accountability & appointments reform debates — links to transparency/collegium criticism.
• Legal academia's role in policy-making — broader governance theme on expert inclusion in constitutional bodies.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing the "distinguished jurist" eligibility clause (Art. 124(3), appointment) with its unrelated reuse in the judge-removal inquiry committee (Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968) — these are two separate contexts [1][2].
• Assuming a minimum experience threshold exists for "distinguished jurist" — the Constitution prescribes none, unlike the 5-year/10-year thresholds for the other two routes [1].
• Misattributing the clause's authorship — it was H.V. Kamath's motion, not Ambedkar's original draft [1].
• Assuming the provision is mandatory ("shall") rather than discretionary ("President's opinion") — this discretion is key to explaining its non-use.
• Confusing this with High Court judge appointment criteria (Article 217), which has a different eligibility structure.