PolityGovernance
News 22 of 24

Article 124(3) Never Used: SC Judge Calls for Appointment of Distinguished Jurist

PolityHIGH
Target:MPSCUPSC GS-IISSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains MediumStatic GK Link
31 Aug 2026
~2 min
Source: Indian Express
Key Data:Article 124(3)76 yearsAugust 30, 202642nd Amendment44th AmendmentMay 24, 1949
Bodies:Supreme CourtNational Law University DelhiCollegiumPresident of India
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.Article 124(3) permits appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a Supreme Court judge, but no such appointment has ever been made.

2.Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in a speech at NLU Delhi (Aug 30, 2026), termed it an 'unused mandate' requiring serious exploration.

3.The clause was added during Constituent Assembly debates in 1949, but the collegium system and Bar Council rules have hindered its use.

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · Medium

Article 124(3) of the Constitution allows the President to appoint a 'distinguished jurist' as a Supreme Court judge. This provision has never been used in over 76 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently called it an 'unused mandate' that needs serious attention to diversify the bench.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Constitutional ArticleArticle 124(3)
Key TermDistinguished Jurist
Years Since Provision Exists76+ years
Justice Who Raised IssueJustice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of SpeechAugust 30, 2026

1-Minute Revision

  • ›Constitutional Article: Article 124(3)
  • ›Key Term: Distinguished Jurist
  • ›Target this Data: Article 124(3) – never used in 76+ years
  • ›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court Collegium – responsible for recommending judges
  • ›Target this Legal Point: 42nd Amendment added 'distinguished jurist' for HC but repealed by 44th Amendment

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Which Article of the Indian Constitution allows the President to appoint a 'distinguished jurist' as a judge of the Supreme Court?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements regarding the appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a Supreme Court judge:

1. The provision was added during the Constituent Assembly debates on May 24, 1949.

2. The 42nd Amendment added a similar provision for High Courts, which was later repealed by the 44th Amendment.

3. A distinguished jurist has been appointed to the Supreme Court in the past.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

In which year was the amendment to include a 'distinguished jurist' in the Supreme Court appointment process adopted by the Constituent Assembly?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

According to Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, what is the primary reason the 'distinguished jurist' provision has remained unused?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

Article 124(3) Provision for 'Distinguished Jurist' as Supreme Court Judge Remains Unused Since 1950

Article 124(3) of the Constitution allows appointment of a 'distinguished jurist' as a Supreme Court judge, but this provision has never been invoked in 76 years. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recently questioned this non-use, highlighting the lost opportunity for legal academics to contribute to the judiciary. This is a key constitutional issue for UPSC with potential for both prelims facts and mains analysis.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Judge Flags Frivolous Criminal Cases, 4.27 Cr Pending, Calls for Amnesty

Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has sharply criticized the filing of frivolous criminal cases, including those over food choices, poems, and social media posts. He proposed a one-time amnesty for non-serious cases to reduce the massive 4.27 crore pending criminal caseload, highlighting systemic issues in criminal justice and policing.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to 2023 EC Appointment Law to 5-Judge Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court has referred the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of Election Commissioners to a 5-judge Constitution Bench after a split verdict. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee, raising concerns about executive dominance and independence of the Election Commission. This case is crucial for exam aspirants as it involves constitutional principles of independence of constitutional bodies and separation of powers.

Polity Current Affairs

Centre Tells SC Creamy Layer Cannot Apply to SC/ST Quotas, Cites Historical Disadvantage

The Centre has opposed extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations, arguing that historical discrimination based on untouchability cannot be equated with economic backwardness. The affidavit also asserts that any change in reservation policy is Parliament's domain, not the courts. This is critical for understanding the distinction between SC/ST and OBC reservation criteria.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Split Verdict on CEC/EC Appointment Act, 2023; Matter Referred to CJI for Constitution Bench

A two-judge Supreme Court bench has split on whether to refer the challenge to the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Constitution Bench. With Justice Dipankar Datta disagreeing with Justice S C Sharma, the case now goes to the CJI for constituting a larger bench. For aspirants, this is a direct link to Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal verdict, and the independence of the Election Commission.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Revises Interim Stay, Preserves Allahabad HC Quashing of NSA Detention Under Article 21

The Supreme Court revised its September 23 interim order, restricting the stay to only certain strictures and costs against the Noida DM, thereby preserving the Allahabad High Court's landmark quashing of a DU student's NSA detention. The case also raises serious questions about the SC's roster system and 'out-of-turn' listing, making it a critical study point for judicial review, preventive detention safeguards, and constitutional procedures.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Questions Fairness of PM-Led Panel for CEC Appointment Under 2023 Act

The Supreme Court has questioned whether the selection of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners by a PM-led committee (with a Union Minister and LoP) demonstrates 'fairness'. The Centre defended the process citing constitutional trust, but the court hinted at the need for a more independent mechanism. This is crucial for understanding the debate on institutional independence and the Election Commission's autonomy.

Polity Current Affairs

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.