Why no 'distinguished jurist' has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court
The Constitution opened a third door to the Supreme Court in 1950. In 76 years, why has nobody walked through it?
Published 2 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
On 30 August 2026, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, speaking at the 13th convocation of National Law University Delhi, asked why no "distinguished jurist" has been appointed to the Supreme Court in the 76 years the Constitution has allowed it. The Indian Express examined this unused route in an Explained piece on 2 September. Article 124(3) says a citizen of India is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge if he or she (a) has been a High Court judge for at least five years, (b) has been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. Every appointment so far has come through the first two routes.
Justice Bhuyan said legal academics with brilliant minds have been left out, and called the usual objection, lack of practical experience, "very shallow". He argued that a distinguished jurist "can be a great value addition to the Bench" through scholarship, helping the Court engage with public law questions beyond narrow technicalities. He cited Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard law professor who became a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, and appointments of academics to top courts in the United Kingdom, Canada and Kenya. He also said the Bench should better reflect the diversity of academia, the Bar and the Bench.
The idea was debated in the Constituent Assembly on 24 May 1949, when H.V. Kamath argued that appointments should not be confined to judges and practising advocates; B.R. Ambedkar accepted the principle but had reservations about the word "distinguished". The 42nd Amendment (1976) added a similar route for High Court judges in Article 217, and the 44th Amendment (1978) removed it. Reasons offered for the route's disuse include a view that Indian legal academia lacks the required distinction, the collegium's habit of choosing from High Courts and the Bar, and limits on full-time law teachers practising in court. Sceptics of the route say Supreme Court judges also decide appeals on evidence and procedure, where courtroom experience matters.
Prelims facts
- Article 124(3) allows three routes to the Supreme Court: five years as a High Court judge, ten years as a High Court advocate, or being a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion.
- No distinguished jurist has ever been appointed; Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised this at NLU Delhi's 13th convocation on 30 August 2026.
- The Constituent Assembly debated the route on 24 May 1949; H.V. Kamath pressed for going beyond judges and practising advocates.
- The 42nd Amendment (1976) added a distinguished jurist route for High Court judges under Article 217; the 44th Amendment (1978) removed it.
- Under the Third Judges case (1998), the Supreme Court collegium is the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges.
Quick recall
- Which clause of Article 124 allows a distinguished jurist to be a Supreme Court judge?
- Article 124(3)(c).
- Who decides whether a person is a distinguished jurist?
- The President, in his or her opinion.
- How many years as a High Court judge qualify a person for the Supreme Court?
- At least five years.
- How many years as a High Court advocate qualify a person for the Supreme Court?
- At least ten years.
- Where did Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raise the jurist question?
- At the 13th convocation of National Law University Delhi, 30 August 2026.
- Which amendment added, and which removed, a distinguished jurist route for High Court judges?
- Added by the 42nd Amendment (1976); removed by the 44th Amendment (1978).
- Who make up the Supreme Court collegium for Supreme Court appointments?
- The Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges (Third Judges case, 1998).
- When was the NJAC struck down?
- 16 October 2015.
Prelims practice question
Under Article 124(3) of the Constitution of India, a citizen of India is qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court if he or she
1. has been a judge of a High Court for at least five years
2. has been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years
3. is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (d) 1, 2 and 3. All three are qualifying routes under Article 124(3)(a), (b) and (c). The third, the distinguished jurist route, has never been used, but it is valid in law.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Appointment of judges, the collegium and judicial independence
- How to use this
Use the unused jurist route to add an eligibility dimension to the India-USA comparison: India's collegium draws only from judges and advocates, while the US has appointed academics.
- Article 124(3) allows appointment of a High Court judge of five years, a High Court advocate of ten years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion; the third route has never been used.
- Under the Third Judges case (1998), the collegium is the CJI and four senior-most judges; it habitually chooses from High Courts and the Bar.
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (30 August 2026) cited Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard law professor who became a US Supreme Court judge, and academic appointments in the UK, Canada and Kenya.
- How to use this
Use the jurist debate to suggest that, within the collegium-led system, appointments need transparent criteria and a wider pool.
- No distinguished jurist has been appointed in 76 years; reasons include the collegium's habit of choosing from High Courts and the Bar and the undefined meaning of 'distinguished'.
- Way forward: set transparent criteria for 'distinguished jurist' in the memorandum of procedure, so the collegium can look beyond High Court judges and advocates.
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment.
How to use thisArgue that a wider, more diverse pool of judges, including jurists, can strengthen an independent and credible judiciary.
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan argued a distinguished jurist 'can be a great value addition to the Bench', helping the Court engage public law questions beyond narrow technicalities, and urged greater Bench diversity.
- In the Constituent Assembly on 24 May 1949, H.V. Kamath argued appointments should not be confined to judges and practising advocates; sceptics say courtroom experience matters for appeals.
Mains practice question
The 'distinguished jurist' route under Article 124(3) has never been used. Discuss the reasons, and examine whether it should be revived to diversify the higher judiciary. (150 words)
Model answer
Article 124(3)(c) allows the President to appoint a "distinguished jurist" to the Supreme Court, but the route has never been used in 76 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised this on 30 August 2026.
Reasons for disuse
- The collegium draws from High Court judges and senior advocates whose work it has seen in court.
- A perception that Indian legal academia lacks the needed distinction.
- "Distinguished" is undefined, leaving no benchmark.
- Limits on full-time law teachers practising reduce their visibility.
Why revive it
- Depth in constitutional and public law, beyond narrow technicalities.
- Diversity of experience on the Bench.
- Precedents abroad, such as Felix Frankfurter in the U.S.
Cautions
- The Court also hears appeals on evidence and procedure, where courtroom experience helps.
Way forward
- Set transparent criteria for "distinguished jurist" in the memorandum of procedure.
Used sparingly and transparently, the route can enrich the Court without weakening it.
The basics
Why this matters
The Constitution opens three doors to the Supreme Court. Two are used all the time; the third has stayed shut since 1950. On 30 August 2026 Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked why. Prelims tests the exact qualifications; Mains asks about the collegium, diversity on the Bench and judicial reform.
Three doors
Article 124(3) says a citizen of India is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge if he or she has been a High Court judge for at least five years, an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. See Article 124 and Supreme Court appointments.
- 1(a) A High Court judgeFor at least five years, in one High Court or two or more in succession
- 2(b) A High Court advocateFor at least ten years, in one High Court or two or more in succession
- 3(c) A distinguished juristIn the opinion of the President; never used so far
Where the idea came from
The framers debated the route in the Constituent Assembly in May 1949, as The jurist route in the Constituent Assembly explains. A similar clause was added for High Court judges in 1976 and removed in 1978, the story told in Article 217 and High Court judges.
- 24 May 1949Constituent Assembly debates widening eligibility beyond judges and advocates
- 1950Constitution in force; Article 124(3)(c) allows a distinguished jurist
- 197642nd Amendment adds a distinguished jurist route for High Court judges
- 197844th Amendment removes that High Court route
- 1993Second Judges case gives the judiciary primacy through the collegium
- 2026Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asks why the route has never been used
The argument today
Appointments are driven by the The collegium system, which in practice draws from High Court judges and senior advocates it knows. Justice Bhuyan argues that academics would add scholarship and diversity; the usual reply is that judges need courtroom experience.
- Depth in constitutional and public law
- A Bench that reflects academia as well as the Bar and Bench
- Precedents abroad, such as Felix Frankfurter in the U.S.
- Lack of courtroom and trial experience, an objection Bhuyan called 'very shallow'
- No clear test of who is 'distinguished'
- The collegium's habit of choosing from known pools
Go deeper
In one line: Article 124(3)(c) lets the President appoint a "distinguished jurist" to the Supreme Court, but in 76 years no one has been appointed that way, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan wants that to change.
Why it matters for UPSC
Qualifications of judges are a Prelims staple, and Mains has asked about the collegium (2017, 2025) and judicial independence (2023). This debate adds a fresh angle: who gets to be a judge, not only who chooses.
The core idea
Article 124 and Supreme Court appointments sets out three routes to the Court. Only two have been used, because the The collegium system recommends names mostly from High Courts and the Bar. The framers deliberately kept a third route open after a debate described in The jurist route in the Constituent Assembly. A similar door for High Courts, discussed in Article 217 and High Court judges, was opened in 1976 and shut in 1978.
Numbers and dates to remember
- Article 124(3): (a) five years as a High Court judge, (b) ten years as a High Court advocate, (c) distinguished jurist in the President's opinion
- 24 May 1949: Constituent Assembly debate on the provision
- 1976 and 1978: 42nd Amendment added, and 44th Amendment removed, a jurist route for High Courts
- 30 August 2026: Justice Bhuyan's remarks at the 13th convocation of National Law University Delhi
- 65: retirement age of Supreme Court judges
Where to go next
- Article 124 and Supreme Court appointments: who qualifies, who appoints and how a judge is removed
- The collegium system: who actually picks the judges and how that came about
- The jurist route in the Constituent Assembly: what the framers intended, and why the word 'distinguished' worried Ambedkar
- Article 217 and High Court judges: the High Court parallel, and the jurist clause that came and went
Go deeper: should the third door be opened?
Justice Bhuyan's case. Speaking at the National Law University Delhi convocation on 30 August 2026, he said legal academics with brilliant minds have been kept out, and called the "lack of practical experience" objection "very shallow". He said a distinguished jurist "can be a great value addition to the Bench", bringing scholarship to public law questions rather than narrow technicalities, and pointed to Felix Frankfurter, a Harvard law professor who became a U.S. Supreme Court judge, and to academic appointments in the U.K., Canada and Kenya. He also argued that the Bench should reflect the diversity of academia, the Bar and the Bench.
Why the route has stayed shut. Explanations offered include a belief that Indian legal academia lacks the distinction the clause demands, the The collegium system's reliance on candidates it has watched in court, and rules that limit full-time law teachers from practising, so few academics build a public profile before the courts. The vague word "distinguished", which Ambedkar himself questioned (see The jurist route in the Constituent Assembly), gives no benchmark.
The other side. Sceptics argue that the Supreme Court is also a court of appeal that handles evidence, procedure and sentencing, where courtroom experience helps.
Possible middle paths. Options include starting in the High Courts, as the 1976 amendment briefly allowed (see Article 217 and High Court judges), or laying down criteria for what counts as a distinguished jurist within the collegium's memorandum of procedure. Any such move would still run through the appointment process in Article 124 and Supreme Court appointments.
Article 124 and Supreme Court appointments
who qualifies, who appoints and how a judge is removed
In one line: Article 124 creates the Supreme Court and lays down how its judges are appointed, what they must qualify in, and how they can be removed.
Appointment and qualifications
Judges are appointed by the President by warrant under hand and seal, after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President deems necessary; in practice this follows the collegium's recommendation. Under Article 124(3) a candidate must be a citizen of India and either a High Court judge for five years, a High Court advocate for ten years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion. Judges hold office until 65.
Removal
Under Article 124(4) a judge can be removed only by an order of the President after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 sets out the procedure.
Where to go next
The collegium system
who actually picks the judges and how that came about
In one line: The collegium is a group of the senior-most Supreme Court judges who, through judge-made rules, effectively choose who becomes a judge of the higher judiciary.
How it came about
In the First Judges case (S.P. Gupta, 1981) the Court held that "consultation" with the Chief Justice did not mean concurrence, giving the executive the upper hand. The Second Judges case (1993) reversed this and gave primacy to the judiciary acting through the Chief Justice and senior judges. The Third Judges case (1998), a Presidential reference under Article 143, fixed the Supreme Court collegium as the Chief Justice and the four senior-most judges.
The NJAC episode
Parliament tried to replace the collegium through the 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014. The Supreme Court struck both down on 16 October 2015, saying they threatened judicial independence.
Why it is in the news
Justice Bhuyan's call raises the question of whether the collegium should look beyond its usual pools.
Where to go next
The jurist route in the Constituent Assembly
what the framers intended, and why the word 'distinguished' worried Ambedkar
In one line: The Constituent Assembly chose to keep the Supreme Court open to eminent legal scholars, not only judges and practising lawyers.
The debate
On 24 May 1949, H.V. Kamath argued that appointments should not be confined to judges and practising advocates but should include persons of outstanding legal and juristic learning. M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar supported widening the pool. B.R. Ambedkar accepted the principle but had reservations about the term "distinguished".
The result
The Constitution adopted clause (c) of Article 124(3): a person who is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. The framers left the term undefined, and no appointment has ever been made under it.
Why it is in the news
Justice Bhuyan invoked this history on 30 August 2026 to argue the clause was meant to be used.
Where to go next
Article 217 and High Court judges
the High Court parallel, and the jurist clause that came and went
In one line: Article 217 governs appointments to the High Courts, and it once briefly allowed distinguished jurists too.
The rules today
High Court judges are appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and, for judges other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of that High Court. A candidate must be a citizen who has held judicial office in India for ten years or been a High Court advocate for ten years. High Court judges retire at 62.
The clause that came and went
The 42nd Amendment (1976) added a third route to Article 217(2): a person who is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. The 44th Amendment (1978) removed it. The Law Commission's 80th Report, on the method of appointment of judges, recorded this change. So today a jurist can, in law, go straight to the Supreme Court but not to a High Court.
Where to go next
Take the 2 September 2026 quiz: 36 Prelims-style questions with answers