{"id":370841,"date":"2026-09-01T22:10:14","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T16:40:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?page_id=370841"},"modified":"2026-09-01T22:10:14","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T16:40:14","slug":"answered-why-has-article-1243c-remained-an-unused-constitutional-provision-and-how-does-integrating-legal-academics-strengthen-constitutional-jurisprudence-examine","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/answered-why-has-article-1243c-remained-an-unused-constitutional-provision-and-how-does-integrating-legal-academics-strengthen-constitutional-jurisprudence-examine\/","title":{"rendered":"[Answered] Why has Article 124(3)(c) remained an unused constitutional provision, and how does integrating legal academics strengthen constitutional jurisprudence? Examine."},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Article 124(3)(c) uniquely permits distinguished jurists to join the Supreme Court, yet remains unused for 76 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan\u2019s recent intervention revives debate on judicial diversity and constitutional expertise.<\/p>\n

Why has Article 124(3)(c) remained unused?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Constitutional and Historical<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Article 124(3) provides three routes: 5 years as High Court judge, 10 years as High Court advocate, or being a \u201cdistinguished jurist\u201d in the President\u2019s opinion.<\/li>\n
  2. The provision emerged from the Constituent Assembly debate of 24 May 1949, when H.V. Kamath argued that the Supreme Court should not be confined to judges and advocates.<\/li>\n
  3. M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar cited the US model of appointing eminent legal academics, while B.R. Ambedkar accepted the principle, though questioning the term distinguished.<\/li>\n
  4. Yet judicial appointments evolved around the Bench-Bar pipeline, making academia institutionally peripheral. Example: Bench-Bar tradition.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Conceptual Scope and Institutional Bottlenecks<\/strong><\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Defining the Distinguished Jurist:<\/strong> Refers to eminent legal scholars, professors, and researchers whose scholarship heavily shapes public law, civil liberties, and statutory interpretation. Example:\u00a0 Leading Legal Academics.<\/li>\n
    2. Institutional Collegium Preference:<\/strong> The executive-led (pre-1993) and Collegium-led systems have consistently prioritized senior High Court judges and senior advocates, marginalizing academic appointments. Example:\u00a0 Collegium Elevation Norms.<\/li>\n
    3. The Courtroom Experience Fallacy:<\/strong> Critics argue academics lack trial and procedural expertise, though constitutional adjudication focuses primarily on core legal doctrines over routine facts. Example:\u00a0 US Supreme Court Precedents.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Imperatives for Activating Article 124(3)(c)<\/strong><\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. Diversifying Judicial Perspectives:<\/strong> Incorporating scholars expands the Court’s analytical depth beyond narrow procedural technicalities to address complex public law issues. Example:\u00a0 Public Law Diversity.<\/li>\n
      2. Enriching Constitutional Adjudication:<\/strong> Jurists bring systemic insights from comparative law, socio-legal research, and international jurisprudence. Example:\u00a0 Comparative Jurisprudence Inputs.<\/li>\n
      3. Dismantling Formalist Barriers:<\/strong> Eliminates the institutional silo that decouples legal academia from active constitutional decision-making. Example:\u00a0 Academy-Bench Integration.<\/li>\n
      4. Rights and Social-Justice: <\/strong>Legal scholarship can introduce socio-legal and interdisciplinary perspectives, helping courts assess how laws affect marginalised communities rather than relying exclusively on adversarial facts. It can deepen interpretation of Articles 14, 19 and 21, fraternity, dignity and substantive equality. Example: Transformative constitutionalism.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Way Forward<\/strong><\/h2>\n
          \n
        1. Formalize Evaluation Criteria under Collegium Rules:<\/strong> Develop objective parameters\u2014such as peer-reviewed legal scholarship, citations, and advisory contributions\u2014to evaluate candidate jurists. Example: Merit-Based Academic Criteria.<\/li>\n
        2. Amend BCI Rules for Dual-Role Academics:<\/strong> Relax Bar Council constraints to allow full-time law professors to undertake selective pro-bono litigation, bridging theoretical and practical domains. Example: BCI Practice Allowance.<\/li>\n
        3. Institutionalize High Court Jurist Entries:<\/strong> Extend provisions for distinguished jurist appointments to High Courts, building a feeder cadre for top court elevations. Example:\u00a0 High Court Jurist Elevation.<\/li>\n
        4. Bridge Theory and Practice:<\/strong> permit carefully regulated academic engagement in constitutional litigation and law-reform bodies. Example: Scholar-practitioner model.<\/li>\n
        5. Maintain Judicial Independence:<\/strong> selection must remain insulated from political patronage and ideological preferences. Example: Transparent safeguards.<\/li>\n
        6. Pilot the Provision:<\/strong> consider an initial distinguished-jurist appointment after establishing publicly articulated eligibility and evaluation standards. Example: Constitutional experimentation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Activating Article 124(3)(c) honors the original intent of the Constituent Assembly, ensuring that academic scholarship enriches apex court decision-making and advances constitutionalism toward Viksit Bharat@2047.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Introduction Article 124(3)(c) uniquely permits distinguished jurists to join the Supreme Court, yet remains unused for 76 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan\u2019s recent intervention revives debate on judicial diversity and constitutional expertise. Why has Article 124(3)(c) remained unused? Constitutional and Historical Article 124(3) provides three routes: 5 years as High Court judge, 10 years as High… Continue reading [Answered] Why has Article 124(3)(c) remained an unused constitutional provision, and how does integrating legal academics strengthen constitutional jurisprudence? Examine.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10320,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-370841","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","entry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/370841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10320"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=370841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/370841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=370841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}