Diversifying the Judiciary: The Case for Appointing Distinguished Jurists to the Supreme Court
GS2
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has reignited the debate on utilizing the 'distinguished jurist' provision under Article 124(3) to enhance legal scholarship within the Supreme Court, a constitutional avenue left dormant for over seven decades.
The recent call by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan to invoke Article 124(3) of the Indian Constitution brings to the forefront a long-overlooked mechanism for judicial appointments. While the Supreme Court is primarily composed of judges elevated from the High Courts or the Bar, the Constitution explicitly provides for the appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a judge of the apex court. Despite this provision existing since the inception of the Constitution, it has remained a dead letter for 76 years.
Proponents of this move argue that the judiciary faces increasingly complex challenges in the digital age, ranging from intellectual property rights and international trade law to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Integrating legal academics—who possess deep theoretical knowledge and a broader perspective on jurisprudence—could significantly enrich the court's deliberative process. Such an infusion of diverse expertise would move the judiciary beyond the traditional 'judge-centric' model, potentially fostering a more robust intellectual culture within the institution.
Continue reading — free with login
JeetoBharat publishes daily UPSC current affairs mapped to the Mains syllabus. Log in to read full articles.
Log in to read full articleNo credit card required. Free registered users get unlimited access.
This article was curated using AI. While we strive for accuracy, please verify critical facts from official sources.