Article 124(3) is a provision within the Constitution of India that specifies the qualifications for a person to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court. This provision was incorporated in 1950 and debated in the Constituent Assembly on May 24, 1949, as part of Article 124, which establishes the Supreme Court. The provision was introduced to broaden the pool of talent for the apex court.
Article 124(3) states that a person must be a citizen of India and satisfy one of three criteria to be qualified for appointment. The person must have been a High Court Judge for at least five years; or have been an advocate of a High Court for at least ten years. The third, distinct criterion is that the person must be, in the opinion of the President, a "distinguished jurist". This third route was proposed by H.V. Kamath to include individuals with "outstanding legal and juristic learning" who may not have practiced in court, a principle accepted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
The term "distinguished jurist" is not defined in the Constitution. While the provision refers to the President's opinion, the appointment process is connected to the Supreme Court collegium system, which initiates recommendations. The provision has remained an "unused mandate" as no person has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court under the "distinguished jurist" category in over 76 years. This route is exclusive to the Supreme Court; a similar provision for High Courts under Article 217 was briefly introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, but was repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.