The Supreme Court of India has declined to consider a petition from seven Family Court judges in Maharashtra. The judges sought directions for their elevation to the high court under Article 217 of the Constitution. This decision was announced on Monday in New Delhi.
The petitioners contended that being the judges of the Family Court, they hold a ‘judicial office’ in the territory of India, discharge judicial functions and, as such, are entitled to be considered for elevation to the high court. “The only recourse that might be available to the petitioners would be to impress upon the jurisdictional high court and the state government to reformulate the rules for appointment of presiding officers of Family Courts, especially in light of the provisions for such appointment as prevailing in other States. The top court had earlier held that “the Judges of the Family Courts may be ‘Judges’ presiding over such courts in its ‘generic sense’ but they are neither members/integral part of the ‘Judicial Services’ of the State nor do they hold a ‘judicial office’ as contemplated under Article 217, and, as such, they do not have any right to be considered for elevation to the high court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the “problem lies in the creation of a separate cadre for Family Courts” and questioned how the earlier judgements can be revisited without any factual or legal change. “We hasten to add that this is essentially a policy matter for which the high court and the state government, in consultation with each other, can take appropriate steps,” the bench said.
Because there is already a judgment by this Court which prohibits any relief, he said the petitioners cannot go to the high court.
