Who is a ‘distinguished jurist’, and why has India never appointed one to the Supreme Court?

For more than seven decades, India has never appointed a "distinguished jurist" to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted this "unused mandate" of the Constitution during the 13th convocation address for the LL.M programmes at National Law University Delhi. Article 124(3) of the Constitution allows for the appointment of a distinguished jurist as a judge, but no such individual has been appointed so far.

The clause was introduced during the Constituent Assembly debates in 1949, as members recognized the need to include individuals with outstanding legal and juristic learning, even if they had not practiced law. Notably, India's approach differs from that of the International Court of Justice, which selects its members based on similar criteria.

However, potential challenges include the Bar Council rules that prevent full-time law teachers from practicing law, and the existing collegium system for Supreme Court appointments, which may render it difficult to identify suitable jurists for the role.