Who can be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court?

Correct — C, a distinguished jurist in the opinion of the President of India. Article 124(3) lays down three alternative routes to the Supreme Court Bench, and a candidate must be a citizen of India and satisfy at least one of them: five years as a judge of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession; ten years as an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession; or, in the President's opinion, a distinguished jurist. The third route is the one reproduced accurately here. It has never been used — every judge appointed so far has come through the judge or advocate route — but it remains on the books, and the question is testing the text rather than the practice.

• (a)An advocate who has practised for at least ten years in any court — Ten years is right but the court is not. The clause requires ten years as an advocate of a High Court, or of two or more High Courts in succession, so practice confined to subordinate courts does not qualify.
• (b)A Judge of a High Court for at least three years — The requirement is five years, not three. This is the most common misremembering of the clause.
• (d)A person who has held a judicial office for at least fifteen years — No such qualification exists for the Supreme Court. Ten years in judicial office is one of the routes to a High Court under Article 217(2), and the fifteen-year figure appears nowhere in either provision.

Article 124 governs the establishment and composition of the Supreme Court — appointment by the President, the consultation requirement, the qualifications in clause (3), the oath, the age of retirement at sixty-five and the removal procedure. Article 217 does the parallel work for the High Courts, and its qualifications differ: ten years in judicial office in India, or ten years as an advocate of a High Court, with no distinguished-jurist route.

The two Articles are examined against each other, so the safest way to hold them is as a small table of numbers. Supreme Court: five years as a High Court judge, ten years as a High Court advocate, or distinguished jurist; retirement at sixty-five. High Court: ten years in judicial office or ten years at the Bar; retirement at sixty-two. The distinguished-jurist clause is the only qualification in either provision that rests on opinion rather than on years served, and its non-use has been a recurring subject of debate.

• Article 124(3) requires Indian citizenship plus one of three qualifications.
• Five years as a High Court judge, or ten years as a High Court advocate, or distinguished jurist in the President's opinion.
• The distinguished-jurist route has never yet been used for an appointment.
• A Supreme Court judge retires at sixty-five; a High Court judge at sixty-two.
• Article 217(2) governs High Court appointments and offers only two routes, ten years in judicial office or ten years at the Bar.

• Reading 'any court' for 'a High Court' in the advocate clause.
• Swapping the five-year judge requirement with the ten-year advocate requirement.
• Assuming the distinguished-jurist clause is a dead letter that can be ignored; it is the text, and papers quote the text.

A straight text-recall item on one constitutional clause, with each wrong option produced by altering one number or one noun.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The minimum period of service as a High Court judge that qualifies a person for appointment to the Supreme Court is

  • (a)three years
  • (b)five years
  • (c)seven years
  • (d)ten years

  Answer(b) five years — under Article 124(3)(a).

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A judge of the Supreme Court of India holds office until the age of

  • (a)60 years
  • (b)62 years
  • (c)65 years
  • (d)70 years

  Answer(c) 65 years — a High Court judge retires at 62.