Retiring Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has called it regrettable that no legal academic has ever been appointed as a Supreme Court judge in India, despite Article 124(3)(c) of the Constitution expressly permitting such appointments. He highlighted that eminent jurists from universities remain an untapped source for judicial appointments, contrasting India's practice with other democracies where legal scholars regularly serve on apex courts. The observation renews debate over the collegium's narrow appointment pool.

Article 124(3) of the Constitution lays down three categories from which Supreme Court judges may be appointed: (a) a Judge of a High Court for at least five years, (b) an Advocate of a High Court for at least ten years, and (c) a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President. Category (c) — the 'distinguished jurist' route — has existed since the Constitution came into force in 1950, yet has never been used in over seven decades.

This is a structural gap with significant constitutional law implications. The framers deliberately included legal academics to bring doctrinal depth and comparative constitutional thinking to the bench. In the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, legal scholars have shaped apex court jurisprudence from the bench itself.

The collegium system, as it evolved through the Three Judges Cases (SP Gupta 1981, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association 1993, and In re Special Reference 1998), effectively concentrates appointment power in the hands of the Chief Justice and four senior-most judges. Critics argue this self-referential loop perpetuates a preference for High Court judges, marginalising the 'distinguished jurist' category entirely.

For CLAT PG aspirants, the doctrinal link is Article 124 read with the collegium jurisprudence. The examiner can test: the three eligibility categories, the Three Judges Cases in sequence, and the constitutional intent behind Category (c). Justice Bhuyan's observation is a live trigger for passage-based questions on judicial appointments and the collegium's scope.