{
  "id": 4792517,
  "title": "Can jurists be appointed as Supreme Court Judges? | Explained",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/01/can-jurists-be-appointed-as-supreme-court-judges-explained",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-01T05:11:14.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Hindu",
    "slug": "the-hindu",
    "url": "https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/can-jurists-be-appointed-as-supreme-court-judges-explained/article71412399.ece"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "On 30th August 2026, the Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pondered the question of why a constitutional provision allowing the appointment of a \"distinguished jurist\" to the Supreme Court bench has gone unutilized for over seventy-six years. Reiterating this during the 13th convocation of National Law University, Delhi's LL.M program, the judge highlighted that Article 124(3) of the Constitution permits the appointment of a person deemed a \"distinguished jurist\" by the President as a Supreme Court Judge. However, no legal academic has thus far been elevated to the Supreme Court under this provision. Article 124(3) outlines three modes through which a person can be eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge: a five-year service stint as a High Court Judge, ten years of advocacy practice at a High Court, or, in the President's view, being a \"distinguished jurist.\" While the criteria for what constitutes a \"distinguished jurist\" remain undefined, this category underscores the framers' intent to diversify the Supreme Court's professional backgrounds, potentially including eminent legal scholars and academics. The \"distinguished jurist\" provision was included in the Constitution's draft and its inclusion in the Constituent Assembly debates reflected the desire to broaden the pool of eligible candidates for the Supreme Court, extending beyond the traditional paths of judicial service and legal practice. This provision was first proposed to be extended to High Court Judges on June 7, 1949, but the proposal was not accepted. Nearly three decades later, the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, amended Article 217(2) to permit a \"distinguished jurist\" to be appointed as a High Court Judge; however, this provision was abolished by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978. Despite being part of the Constitution since its inception, the \"distinguished jurist\" provision has never been invoked, with Supreme Court appointments predominantly consisting of High Court Judges and only eleven advocates being directly elevated from the Bar. One challenge associated with appointing legal academics is their potential lack of courtroom and procedural experience, which could pose difficulties in adapting to the practical demands of judicial work. Meanwhile, full-time law teachers face limitations due to restrictions on practicing as advocates, under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which mandates a cessation of legal practice while engaged in full-time salaried employment. In 2019, the Consortium of National Law Universities petitioned for a relaxation of this restriction to permit full-time law faculty to practice in courts, arguing that increased involvement in litigation could help bridge the gap between \"law in books\" and \"law in action.\" Scholarly advocate Shamnad Basheer had also petitioned the Bar Council of India, citing the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which held that legislators could continue to practice as advocates since they were not \"full-time salaried employees\" as defined by Rule 49. Basheer argued that pursuing another profession should not inherently preclude someone from practicing law unless the two roles created a conflict compromising the advocate's independence. Legal academics have, on multiple occasions, contributed directly to the development and interpretation of law. The late Professor Shamnad Basheer's intervention before the Supreme Court in Novartis AG v. Union of India serves as a pertinent example.",
  "summary": "What does the constitutional provision stipulate? What has limited the use of the provision? How have legal academics contributed to the development of law?",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Ghanaian Times",
        "title": "Supreme Court clears way for continuation of Skytrain trial",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/01/supreme-court-clears-way-for-continuation-of-skytrain-trial",
        "published": "2026-09-01T06:36:40.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}