On 30 August 2026, during the 13th convocation of the LLM batch at National Law University, Delhi, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan urged the President to exercise the power under Article 124(3) and appoint legal academicians as judges of the Supreme Court. This appeal follows a controversy involving the Bar Council of India and student protests against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
Key Developments
- Justice Bhuyan highlighted that, despite a 76‑year constitutional provision, no distinguished jurist has been appointed to the Supreme Court.
- He emphasized tolerance of dissent as a constitutional value and linked it to democratic maturity.
- The BCI had briefly ordered state bar councils to block enrolment of the 2026 NALSAR batch for protesting the CJI’s presence, but later retracted the directive after public pressure.
- Justice Bhuyan dismissed the argument that legal scholars lack practical experience, calling it a shallow objection.
Important Facts
The Constitution’s Article 124(3) was drafted to diversify the bench with experts from academia. However, for over seven decades the provision remained dormant, possibly due to perceived insufficient depth in Indian legal academia or lack of political will. Justice Bhuyan argued that appointing scholars would bring fresh perspectives, enhance the moral and constitutional conscience‑keeping role of the Court, and improve the quality of jurisprudence.
Exam Relevance
This episode touches upon several GS‑2 (Polity) themes: the structure and appointment process of the judiciary, the role of the President in judicial appointments, and the importance of constitutional values such as tolerance and dissent. Understanding Supreme Court dynamics is essential for questions on judicial reforms, separation of powers, and the balance between the executive and the judiciary.
Way Forward
- Activate Article 124(3) to bring legal scholars onto the bench.
- Strengthen legal academia to meet the ‘distinguished’ criterion, possibly through enhanced research funding and international collaborations.
- Promote a culture of respectful dissent in universities and professional bodies, reinforcing constitutional tolerance.
- Review the role of the Bar Council of India in disciplinary actions to ensure they align with democratic principles.
By addressing these steps, India can enrich its highest court with academic expertise while upholding the democratic ethos of tolerance and constructive dissent.