It is undoubtedly entirely in order, and so also in the fitness of things that, while taking the most commendable step in the right direction, we see that none other than the Supreme Court Judge – Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan – has stepped forward and called for a very serious debate on the appointment of distinguished jurists as Judges of the Supreme Court. He has very rightly questioned that, “Why has no ‘distinguished jurist’ ever been made a Supreme Court Judge in 76 years?” This is indeed most baffling and cannot be ever justified under any circumstances, as we have had so many distinguished jurists in the last 76 years, yet not even one has ever been a Supreme Court judge!

Appointment of Distinguished Jurists as Supreme Court Judges

He very rightly underscored that the constitutional provision enabling such appointments has remained unused for over 76 years! I think that it is because the Centre fears that if any person other than practicing lawyers is made a Supreme Court judge, then they can be more independent in decision-making and take prompt action to redress the key issues that ail the Indian judiciary, like the lack of toilets in district courts, especially for women, due to which women lawyers have to face so many problems and are still lying unredressed. We see here that even Supreme Court women judges never bother to ever speak on it and drag themselves into needless opinion giving on so many other issues which hardly has any impact that affects women lawyers practising in district courts!

Article 14 and Distribution of High Court Benches

Needless to say, the Centre also fears that if distinguished jurists are made Supreme Court Judges, then they can crack the whip and take suo motu cognisance of the most merciless butchering of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution in the distribution of High Courts and High Court Benches and High Court Circuit Benches in different states and different regions, which practicing lawyers who are made Supreme Court Judges never dare to take suo motu cognisance of despite the clear writing on the wall! The Centre fears that distinguished jurists, if made Supreme Court judges, will definitely break the backbone of this most merciless discrimination that has been perpetrated in the distribution of High Court Benches, especially which culminated in the partition of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh 26 years ago!

Demand for High Court Benches in Different States

If one looks at the whole picture, we see that it reflects a far deeper malaise which now no more can be hidden from public gaze any longer. How long will the Centre keep downplaying and stonewalling the most legitimate and compelling demand for a High Court Bench in West UP and so also in Orissa and Bihar and some other states? This is clearly a stark reminder of how much the Centre discriminates most ruthlessly yet is never held accountable even by the top court! Why does the Apex Court never take Centre to task for it?

Supreme Court and High Court Bench Discrimination

How long will the Supreme Court abjectly keep playing second fiddle in front of the Centre and keep giving unfettered licences to most horrendously and most mercilessly discriminate and perpetrate the most atrocious discrimination perpetrated in the distribution of High Courts and High Court Benches and High Court Circuit Benches in different states and different regions?

Not a single High Court Judge of Allahabad High Court or Patna High Court or Jodhpur High Court or Cuttack High Court or Ahmedabad High Court, among others, nor even any Judge of the Supreme Court has ever dared to take suo motu cognisance of this most merciless butchering of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution!

High Court Bench Distribution in Uttar Pradesh

Biggest insane person on earth in his/her right senses will definitely never endorse what Congress and BJP have done who have ruled in Centre that just one High Court Bench for most populated State of India with maximum number of pending cases and that too so close to Allahabad High Court at Lucknow way back in July 1948 and deprived West UP from having not even a single High Court Bench not even a single High Court Circuit Bench which owes for majority of pending cases of Allahabad High Court which is all on record and has more than 10 crore people and 30 districts and so also attached litigants of 30 districts of West UP and hilly areas of undivided UP with not even Lucknow but right uptill Allahabad which culminated in partition of Uttar Pradesh 26 years ago in which so many people sacrificed their lives and yet Supreme Court never dared to take suo motu cognizance of non-implementation of Justice Jaswant Singh Commission recommendations headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself which recommended maximum 3 High Court Benches for undivided UP – two High Court Circuit Benches in Dehradun and Nainital and a permanent seat of High Court Bench in West UP yet not even one created anywhere which is a national disgrace.

Also Read: Can America Reform the Supreme Court? Latest 5–4 Ruling Reignites Term Limits Debate

Comparison of High Court Benches Across States

Maharashtra, which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji, had one more created at Aurangabad as recommended within a very short span of time in the mid-1980s for just 7 districts, and now one more fifth High Court Bench was approved for just 6 districts at Kolhapur, which started functioning on August 18, 2025, without any recommendations from any commission. But in UP, not a single bench was created in the last 78 years, and so also lawless Bihar has none, and Rajasthan only has one, and Orissa and Gujarat have none, and the Centre has equipped only five elite states – Maharashtra, Karnataka, West Bengal, Assam, and Madhya Pradesh – with multiple High Court Benches, most astoundingly leaving prominent big states like UP, Rajasthan, and lawless Bihar out from the elite club!

States Mentioned in the Distribution of High Court Benches

Why Does No Supreme Court Judge Speak on the Issue?

It must be definitely asked upfront: Why does no judge of the Supreme Court ever dare to openly speak on it? Most bone-chillingly, even the Supreme Court in the last 80 years of independence has never dared to take suo motu cognisance of it, and even the press, which is considered the fourth pillar of Indian democracy, including newspapers and news channels, also maintains a conspicuous inexplicable deafening silence on it and hardly ever accords any prime coverage to it!

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's NLU Delhi Convocation Address

It must also be disclosed here that Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was delivering the convocation address at the 13th Convocation of National Law University Delhi (NLU Delhi) for its postgraduate programmes. It would be instructive to note that Article 124(3) of the Constitution permits the appointment of a person who is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist as a Supreme Court Judge.

However, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out that no jurist has been appointed to the Supreme Court under this provision so far. This is a very sad commentary on the pathetic existing state of affairs which needs to be addressed right now!

Possible Reasons for No Distinguished Jurist Appointment

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan suggested two possible reasons for this. He said while laying bare his pragmatic view that "the first is that earlier, when the collegium system was not there, in the view of the Central Government, and thereafter, when the collegium system came into being, in the view of the collegiums, there is not enough depth in Indian academia to be seriously considered for elevation as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”

He then offered what he considered the more probable explanation. He pointed out that "the second, which is more probable, is that both the Central Government and the collegium have not seriously explored this provision thus far.”

Constituent Assembly and Distinguished Jurists

We need to note that the judge traced the provision to the Constituent Assembly Debates and recalled that HV Kamath had proposed expanding the pool of eligible candidates beyond judges and advocates to include distinguished jurists. The proposal was ultimately accepted by the Constituent Assembly.

Hon’ble Mr Justice Bhuyan said that "The Constituent Assembly evidently felt it important to have legal academics and professors as judges of the Supreme Court of India.” Why then not a single jurist appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India in the last 80 years of independence is a most telling commentary on the manner in which the wishes of the Constituent Assembly have been disregarded with impunity!

Also Read: World Inequality Report 2026: India’s Wealth Gap, Top 1%, and Economic Inequality

Value of Academic Jurists on the Supreme Court Bench

What also cannot be lost sight of is that Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the specious argument that academics should not be appointed as judges because they lack practical experience. He termed it a “shallow objection”.

He pointed out most elegantly that "a distinguished jurist can be a great value addition to the Bench." By his or her scholarship, he or she can make a visible contribution to the decision-making process at the top level.”

Global Examples of Academic Judges

It is also worth noting that Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also referred to eminent constitutional scholar DD Basu’s most enlightening view that bringing academic jurists of the right calibre into the highest court would enrich it.

He also lamented, pointing out that "it is regrettable that this provision has remained one of our Constitution’s unused mandates.” He also went on to ably cite the appointment of academics to constitutional courts in jurisdictions including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and Kenya.

He concluded that the issue deserves renewed consideration. He underscored this seriously, pointing out emphatically that "This is an issue I think the academia needs to debate and put back into the public domain once again.” Very rightly so!

Need for Renewed Debate on Supreme Court Appointments

In conclusion, it must be said that there is a lot of merit in what Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has pointed out so elegantly, eloquently, explicitly, and erudently, and to top it all, effectively.

There is no bona fide reason as to why this need not be given a serious thought and debated, deliberated and discussed threadbare!

It thus merits no reiteration that this most burning issue definitely can no longer be afforded to be put in the backburner any longer now and needs to be addressed at the earliest!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.