Justice Bhuyan Revives Debate on Distinguished Jurists

Justice Bhuyan Revives Debate on Distinguished Jurists

Why in the News ?

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned why the constitutional provision permitting appointment of distinguished jurists to the Supreme Court has remained unused for over seven decades. His remarks also highlighted the importance of academic diversity, dissent and free thought in constitutional democracy.

Article 124 and the Unused Constitutional Provision

•     Justice Bhuyan highlighted Article 124(3) of the Constitution, which provides that a person recognised as a “distinguished jurist” can be appointed as a Supreme Court judge.
•     He regretted that this provision has remained unused for more than 76 years, despite being consciously incorporated by the Constituent Assembly.
•     During the Constituent Assembly debates, members such as K.M. Munshi and M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar supported broadening the pool of potential judges beyond practising advocates and existing judges.
•     A distinguished jurist could potentially include a law professor, academic or university dean with exceptional expertise in legal scholarship.
•     Justice Bhuyan suggested that the Centre and the Supreme Court Collegium may not have seriously explored this constitutional avenue or may have considered the available academic pool insufficient.
•     He argued that including distinguished jurists could diversify the Supreme Court Bench and bring greater academic scholarship into constitutional adjudication.

Universities, Dissent and Constitutional Democracy

•     Justice Bhuyan’s observations came amid recent disagreements involving law students, universities and the legal establishment, making his emphasis on dissent particularly significant.
•     He described universities as spaces where established ideas can be questioned and disagreements can be addressed through reason rather than hostility.
•     He stressed that legal education should develop not only knowledge of law but also the courage to question established assumptions and examine whether laws serve justice.
•     According to him, a healthy constitutional democracy must accommodate different viewpoints and dissent, rather than treating disagreement as a threat.
•     He invoked tolerance as a constitutional value, emphasising that democratic maturity is reflected in how institutions respond to difficult or unpopular opinions.
•     For future lawyers and judges, he underscored the responsibility to keep liberty, equality, dignity and justice at the centre of legal practice, particularly during periods of disagreement and conflict.

 Key points: Supreme Court and Judicial Appointments

•     Article 124 deals with the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court of India.
•     Under Article 124(3), a person may qualify for appointment as a Supreme Court judge if they are a distinguished jurist, in addition to the constitutionally specified categories of judges and advocates.
•     The Supreme Court Collegium system has evolved through judicial decisions and is responsible for recommending appointments and transfers within the higher judiciary.
•     The Supreme Court is India’s highest constitutional and appellate court, entrusted with protecting fundamental rights and interpreting the Constitution.
•     Inclusion of individuals with strong academic backgrounds could potentially contribute comparative perspectives, constitutional scholarship and specialised legal expertise to judicial deliberations.
•     Several countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Kenya, have appointed judges with substantial academic or teaching backgrounds to constitutional courts.