“Distinguished jurist” as a Supreme Court judge

Why in News?

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while delivering the 13th convocation address for the LL.M. programmes at National Law University Delhi (NLUD) on August 30, highlighted that the constitutional provision allowing a “distinguished jurist” to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge has never been used.

He described it as an “unused mandate” of the Constitution and called for serious consideration of this provision.

Key Points

• Article 124 deals with the constitution of the Supreme Court and qualifications for appointment of its judges.
• Article 124(3) provides three routes for appointment as a Supreme Court judge. A person must be:
  1. A citizen of India who has been a High Court judge for at least five years, or
  2. An advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, or
  3. In the opinion of the President, a “distinguished jurist.”
• In practice, the Supreme Court has historically been staffed through the first two routes.
• Most judges have been elevated from High Courts, while some have been appointed directly from the Bar.
• The third route—appointment of a distinguished jurist—has never been utilised since the Constitution came into force.
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the Constitution has been in force for more than 76 years, yet no distinguished jurist has been appointed to the Supreme Court through Article 124(3).

Distinguished Jurist Provision in High Courts

• Article 217 deals with the appointment and conditions of office of High Court judges.
• During the Emergency, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 introduced a provision for appointment of a distinguished jurist as a High Court judge.
• However, this provision was subsequently removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.

Source: IE

CLICK HERE: UPSC PRELIMS & MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS BASED WEEKLY TEST (ENG & HINDI)

CLICK HERE FOR GS TIMES PRAHAR UPSC GS MAINS TEST SERIES 

CLICK HERE: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS QUIZ (FOR ALL EXAMINATIONS)