SC refuses to entertain plea of Family Court judges seeking elevation to high court

The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to entertain a petition filed by seven Family Court judges from Maharashtra who sought directions for their consideration for elevation to the High Court under Article 217 of the Constitution. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed that the issue stems from the creation of a separate cadre for Family Courts and questioned the feasibility of revisiting earlier judgments without any factual or legal change.

The petitioners, who serve as judges in Family Courts across Maharashtra, argued that their roles constitute a 'judicial office' under the Constitution and that they are entitled to be considered for high court appointments. Senior advocate R Basant, representing the petitioners, contended that the plea involves a question of constitutional interpretation regarding Article 217, which governs the appointment, qualifications, and conditions of service for high court judges.

The Supreme Court bench acknowledged that the petitioners might need to approach the jurisdictional high court and the state government to reformulate rules for the appointment of Family Court presiding officers. The court emphasized that this is essentially a policy matter requiring consultation between the high court and the state government. "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," the bench stated.

This is not the first time the issue has been raised before the Supreme Court. Earlier judgments have held that Family Court judges, while presiding over such courts in a generic sense, are not part of the state's judicial services nor do they hold a 'judicial office' as envisaged under Article 217. Consequently, they do not have a right to be considered for elevation to the high court. The Supreme Court bench reiterated this position, stating that any relief must come from the high court and state government through policy changes rather than judicial intervention.

The case highlights the ongoing debate over the status and career progression of Family Court judges in India, particularly in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the plea underscores the complexities involved in addressing such issues without legislative or policy adjustments.

#SupremeCourt #FamilyCourtJudges #Article217 #HighCourtElevation #JudicialServices #Maharashtra #ConstitutionalLaw