Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has called for the activation of constitutional powers to appoint distinguished legal scholars as judges. He emphasized that tolerance for disagreement is a core constitutional value essential for a healthy democracy.
- Justice Bhuyan urged the use of Article 124(3) to appoint distinguished jurists to the SC.
- He highlighted that no legal academic has been appointed to the top court in 76 years.
- Emphasized that the courage to voice unpopular opinions begins at universities.
Speaking at the 13th convocation of the 2026 LLM batch of the National Law University, Delhi, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made a compelling case for diversifying the composition of the nation's highest court. He pointed out a significant historical lapse: despite the Constitution providing for the appointment of 'distinguished jurists' as judges, this provision has remained dormant for over 76 years.
The remarks come amidst a period of tension between the judiciary and the student community. Several premier national law universities have seen protests against the Chief Justice of India (CJI), with students refusing his presence at convocations following controversial oral remarks made in court. Justice Bhuyan addressed this climate by stating that the ability to tolerate disagreement is as vital as the freedom to question.
The Philosophy of Dissent and Democracy
Justice Bhuyan argued that a democratic society cannot function on the premise that everyone thinks alike. He described tolerance not as a mere courtesy, but as a fundamental constitutional value. According to him, democracy becomes meaningful only when diverse voices can coexist and be treated with dignity, regardless of how inconvenient those voices may be to the establishment.
BozokMedia analysis shows that Justice Bhuyan is challenging the traditional 'closed-loop' system of judicial appointments, where candidates are almost exclusively drawn from the Bar or the High Court benches. By integrating legal academia, the Supreme Court could infuse its judgments with deeper theoretical rigor and interdisciplinary scholarship, moving beyond purely technical adjudication to a more holistic constitutional guardianship.
"The Supreme Court is not only the highest adjudicatory body but it is the moral, legal and constitutional conscience keeper of the nation."
Addressing the common criticism that scholars lack 'practical experience,' Justice Bhuyan dismissed this as a "shallow objection." He argued that the purpose of Article 124(3) was specifically to diversify the Bench. He clarified that the term 'jurist' should not be loosely applied to only reputable lawyers or judges, but should encompass anyone with exceptional skill and knowledge in the field of law.
The Judge lamented that the reluctance to appoint academics may have stemmed from a perceived lack of "depth in Indian academia" or a simple failure to take the constitutional provision seriously. This has resulted in a loss of opportunity for brilliant legal minds to contribute to the highest level of decision-making in India.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What is the significance of Article 124(3)?
A: It allows for the appointment of legal scholars and experts (distinguished jurists) to the Supreme Court, ensuring the court isn't limited only to practicing lawyers or lower court judges.
Q2: Why did Justice Bhuyan mention the role of universities?
A: He stated that the courage to voice unpopular or dissenting opinions begins at universities, which are the breeding grounds for democratic maturity.
