Archive · 30 Aug 2026
Justice Bhuyan Urges Supreme Court To Include Distinguished Jurists
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said India’s Supreme Court should consider appointing distinguished legal scholars as judges.
India’s Constitution allows this kind of appointment.
However, no legal academic or other distinguished jurist has joined the Supreme Court in more than 76 years.
Bhuyan said this is regrettable.
He believes scholars could bring new ideas and help the court understand major public-law questions.
Some people object that professors may not have enough practical legal experience.
Bhuyan called that objection shallow.
He said other countries appoint academics to constitutional courts.
He was speaking at a law university’s convocation in New Delhi.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan urged appointing distinguished jurists directly to the Supreme Court bench.
He said Article 124(3)(c) has enabled such appointments, but none has occurred in more than 76 years.
Bhuyan argued that legal academics could diversify the bench and strengthen constitutional decision-making.
He called the objection that scholars lack practical experience a shallow argument.
He said academics are appointed to constitutional courts in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Kenya.
- Who
- Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan discussed the appointment of distinguished jurists, including legal academics.
- What
- Bhuyan urged the Centre and Collegium to consider appointing distinguished jurists to the Supreme Court bench.
- When
- Sunday, during the 13th convocation ceremony of National Law University, Delhi.
- Where
- New Delhi, at National Law University, Delhi.
- Why
- He said jurists could diversify the bench, contribute academic expertise and improve decision-making on public-law issues.
Supporters Of Jurist Appointments
Arguments Against Or For Continuing Current Practice
Academic expertise on the bench
Supporters Of Jurist Appointments
Distinguished legal academics could add scholarship, diversify the bench and contribute meaningfully to constitutional and public-law decisions.
Arguments Against Or For Continuing Current Practice
The article reports that some have questioned whether university professors possess sufficient practical legal experience for judicial work.
Use of Article 124(3)(c)
Supporters Of Jurist Appointments
Bhuyan said it is regrettable that the constitutional provision allowing distinguished jurists has remained unused for more than 76 years.
Arguments Against Or For Continuing Current Practice
Bhuyan suggested that the Centre and Collegium may either have found insufficient depth in Indian academia or not seriously explored the provision; no specific institutional response was reported.
- Speaker
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court
- Constitutional provision
- Article 124(3)(c) permits the appointment of distinguished jurists as Supreme Court judges.
- Reported gap
- No distinguished jurist has been appointed to the Supreme Court in more than 76 years.
- Bhuyan’s rationale
- Legal scholars could diversify the bench and contribute scholarship to top-level decisions.
- Main objection addressed
- Critics argue that university professors may lack practical legal experience.
- International examples
- Bhuyan cited the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Kenya as countries where academics are appointed to constitutional courts.
- Event
- The remarks were delivered at the 13th convocation ceremony of National Law University, Delhi.