As students protest in law varsities, Justice Bhuyan calls for appointment of SC judges from legal academia

In a significant judicial observation that has reignited constitutional debate, Supreme Court Judge Justice Bhuyan recently highlighted a 76-year constitutional anomaly — the complete non-utilization of Article 124(3) of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to appoint 'distinguished jurists' directly as judges of the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, every single appointment to the apex court has been made exclusively under Article 124(2), which provides for elevation of High Court judges and senior advocates with at least 10 years' standing. Not once has the 'distinguished jurist' route been activated, despite the framers of the Constitution — including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — explicitly envisioning it as a channel to bring profound legal scholarship, academic rigor, and interdisciplinary perspectives into the highest judicial forum. The historical context is revealing. During the Constituent Assembly debates, members like K.T. Shah and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar emphasized that the judiciary should not be confined to career judges alone but must benefit from the wisdom of legal academics, constitutional scholars, and jurists of eminence who may never have practiced in courts. Article 124(3) was deliberately crafted as a bridge between legal theory and judicial practice. Yet, successive governments and collegiums have treated it as a dead letter. The reasons are both structural and cultural: the collegium system, evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998), prioritizes seniority and judicial experience over academic distinction. There is also an implicit bias favoring the 'bar-to-bench' or 'bench-to-bench' trajectory, marginalizing those who dedicated their lives to teaching, research, and law reform. Justice Bhuyan's remarks come at a critical juncture. Student protests across premier law universities — including National Law Schools in Delhi, Bangalore, and Kolkata — have demanded judicial reforms, greater transparency in appointments, and diversification of the bench. These protests reflect a growing awareness among the legal academia and student community that the absence of scholar-judges impoverishes constitutional jurisprudence. Comparative constitutional law offers instructive parallels: the U.S. Supreme Court has frequently included legal academics (e.g., Justice Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School; Justice Felix Frankfurter, Harvard professor), the U.K. Supreme Court has appointed scholars like Lord Sumption and Lord Burrows directly from academia, and South Africa's Constitutional Court benefited immensely from academics like Justice Albie Sachs. The significance for India is profound. A judiciary enriched by legal academics would bring deeper engagement with constitutional theory, comparative law, and interdisciplinary insights — crucial for adjudicating complex issues like digital rights, climate justice, federalism, and minority rights. It would also strengthen the feedback loop between law schools and the judiciary, improving legal education and research. Politically, activating Article 124(3) could depoliticize appointments by introducing a merit-based, scholarship-driven track, reducing perceptions of executive influence. Socially, it would signal that intellectual contribution to law is valued as highly as courtroom advocacy. Constitutionally, Article 124(3) reads: "A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and... (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist." The phrase "in the opinion of the President" implies executive discretion, but post the Second and Third Judges Cases, the collegium's recommendation is binding. Thus, the collegium must take the lead. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 — struck down in 2015 — had included a provision for 'eminent persons,' but its invalidation left the collegium as the sole gatekeeper. Looking ahead, the ball is in the collegium's court. If it recommends a distinguished jurist — say, a renowned constitutional law professor or a former Law Commission chairman — it would set a historic precedent. The Law Commission of India, in its 230th Report (2009), had recommended activating Article 124(3). With student movements gaining momentum and judicial vacancies persisting, the time may be ripe for this constitutional provision to finally breathe. For aspirants, this issue encapsulates the tension between constitutional text and practice, the evolution of the collegium, and the ongoing struggle for judicial diversity — making it a high-yield topic for Polity, Governance, and Essay papers.