"Article 124(3) Distinguished Jurist Clause Remains Unused After 76 Years"
Distinguished Jurist
A legal scholar, teacher, or researcher of exceptional standing, eligible under Article 124(3) for Supreme Court appointment without courtroom experience.
Collegium System
A convention by which the Chief Justice and four senior-most Supreme Court judges collectively recommend judicial appointments, established through judicial interpretation.
The Supreme Court of India is constituted under Article 124 of the Constitution. The framers designed a multi-route pathway to judicial appointment, recognising that legal excellence is not confined to courtroom practice alone. Article 124(3) specifies three categories of persons eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court judge: a citizen who has served as a High Court judge for at least five years, a citizen who has practised as an advocate in a High Court for at least ten years, or a person who is, in the opinion of the President, a 'distinguished jurist.'
The first two routes have been used consistently since the court's inception. The overwhelming majority of Supreme Court judges have been elevated from the High Courts. A smaller number have been appointed directly from the Bar. The third route, the distinguished jurist category, has never been used in over seven decades of the court's existence. A parallel provision was briefly introduced for High Courts through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment during the Emergency period, but it was subsequently repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, leaving the Supreme Court provision as the sole surviving jurist-appointment clause in the Constitution.
The collegium system, which now governs judicial appointments, emerged through a series of Supreme Court judgments between 1982 and 1998. The court established the principle that the Chief Justice, consulting the four senior-most judges, must initiate and effectively decide appointments. This system replaced the earlier understanding that the President, acting on ministerial advice, held the decisive role. Any distinguished jurist appointment today would have to pass through this collegium process before reaching the President.
The distinguished jurist clause was inserted into the Constitution during the Constituent Assembly debates. The rationale was straightforward. Legal scholarship and juristic learning are not the same as courtroom advocacy. A person who has spent decades studying constitutional law, writing treatises, or teaching at a law school may possess a depth of legal reasoning that a practising advocate or a trial-court-elevated judge does not. The framers wanted to keep this door open.
During the debates, it was noted that the International Court of Justice selects its judges on similar terms, allowing eminent scholars without courtroom backgrounds to serve. Reference was also made to the appointment of a Harvard law professor to the United States Supreme Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, cited as a successful precedent for bringing academic legal minds into apex judicial roles. …
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
The judicial systems in India and UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices.
Consider the following statements regarding Article 124(3) of the Constitution of India:
1.It allows the appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a judge of the Supreme Court.
2.A person must have at least ten years of High Court advocacy experience to qualify under the distinguished jurist category.
3.The 42nd Constitutional Amendment introduced a similar distinguished jurist provision for High Court judges.
4.The 44th Constitutional Amendment repealed the distinguished jurist provision for High Courts.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Consider the following statements about the collegium system for Supreme Court appointments in India:
1.The collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
2.The collegium system is explicitly provided for in the text of the Constitution.
3.Any appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' under Article 124(3) would today require a collegium recommendation.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Match the following Constitutional Amendments with their effect on judicial appointments in India:
List I (Amendment) — List II (Effect)
A.42nd Constitutional Amendment — 1. Repealed the distinguished jurist provision for High Courts
B.44th Constitutional Amendment — 2. Added a distinguished jurist provision for High Court judges
C.Article 124(3) as originally enacted — 3. Provides the distinguished jurist route for Supreme Court judges only
Select the correct match:
With reference to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India, consider the following statements:
1.A person who has never practised as an advocate can be appointed as a Supreme Court judge.
2.The minimum advocacy experience required for direct appointment from the Bar is ten years in a High Court.
3.The President of India has sole discretion in determining who qualifies as a 'distinguished jurist' under Article 124(3).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Under Article 124(3) of the Constitution of India, which of the following is NOT a prescribed route for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account