Article 124(3)(c): Unused Provision for Appointing Jurists as Supreme Court Judges

Legal experts and constitutional scholars have brought renewed focus to Article 124(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution. This rarely discussed provision permits the President of India to appoint a 'distinguished jurist' directly as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. Despite being part of the original Constitution framed in 1950, this provision has never been utilized in the history of the Indian judiciary.

The provision was incorporated by the Constituent Assembly to ensure that eminent legal academics and scholars could contribute to Supreme Court jurisprudence, mirroring practices in legal systems like the United States. While qualifications under Article 124(3)(a) requiring five years as a High Court judge and 124(3)(b) requiring ten years as an advocate in a High Court are regularly used, sub-clause (c) remains dormant.

Key constitutional requirements for a Supreme Court judge include being a citizen of India and fulfilling one of the three sub-clauses of Article 124(3). The Law Commission of India, in its 14th Report (1958) and 67th Report (1977), advocated utilizing Article 124(3)(c) to enrich the bench with academic depth. Appointments are formally recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India.

For civil services aspirants, understanding Article 124 is critical for judicial governance topics. In Prelims, examiners frequently frame trick MCQs on qualification criteria for SC judges versus High Court judges. In Mains Paper II, this highlights institutional reform discussions regarding judicial appointments, diversity on the bench, and broad-basing judicial expertise.