Justice Ujjal Bhuyan bats for distinguished jurists in Supreme Court

Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday called for the appointment of distinguished jurists to the apex court, saying legal academics could diversify the bench and strengthen decision-making. He expressed regret that the constitutional provision remains unused after 76 years

New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday batted for appointing “distinguished jurists” as judges of the top court, saying their inclusion would diversify the bench with talent and enable scholars of repute to contribute to the decision-making process.

Justice Bhuyan said it was regrettable that, despite Article 124(3)(c) of the Constitution enabling such appointments, no person other than a High Court judge or a practising lawyer had been appointed to the Supreme Court in the last 76 years.

---

He said that either the Centre and the Collegium had found there was “not enough depth” in Indian academia for candidates to be “seriously considered” for judgeship, or the two authorities had not “seriously explored this provision thus far”.

Justice Bhuyan called the assertion that legal scholars lack practical experience a “very shallow objection”, adding that distinguished academics are appointed as judges of constitutional courts in several countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Kenya.

Justice Bhuyan was speaking at the 13th convocation ceremony for postgraduate students of the National Law University Delhi.

“No jurist has been appointed so far to the Supreme Court, though the Constitution has completed more than 76 years. It is regrettable that this provision has remained one of our Constitution’s unused mandates,” Justice Bhuyan said.

“No legal academic has yet been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court despite there being some brilliant minds who could have made a substantial contribution had they become part of the bench,” he added.

Justice Bhuyan asserted that the Supreme Court, as the nation’s moral, legal and constitutional conscience keeper, was “above technicalities” and that academia, the Bar and the Bench must reflect India’s real diversity.

“The reason for having this provision of ‘distinguished jurist’ is to diversify the bench with talented judges. It was believed that, with their academic scholarship, such distinguished jurists would not remain constricted by narrow technicalities, thereby being in a stronger position to deal with public law issues,” Justice Bhuyan said.

“Opinions have been expressed that a university professor can contribute significantly to the judicial system. I have no reason to take a different view,” he added.

Justice Bhuyan said several “highly talented” law academics in India had been underappreciated and were therefore unable to contribute more meaningfully to the development of law in the country.

“A distinguished jurist can be a great value addition to the bench. Through his or her scholarship, he or she can make a visible contribution to the decision-making process at the top level,” the judge opined.