The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition by seven Family Court judges from Maharashtra who sought consideration for elevation to the High Court under Article 217 of the Constitution, ruling that any alteration to cadre structures and recruitment norms remains a policy matter for the state government and the High Court to resolve.
Policy Decision for State and High Court
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana observed on Monday that the core issue stems from the establishment of a separate cadre for Family Courts. The bench questioned the basis for reconsidering previous binding judgments on the subject in the absence of any new legal or factual developments.
The court noted that the petitioners’ proper course of action is to approach the jurisdictional High Court and the state government to seek a reformulation of the service and appointment rules governing Family Court presiding officers, taking into account frameworks adopted by other states. The judges emphasized that such adjustments fall within the domain of administrative and policy decisions that require joint consultation between the state government and the High Court.
Arguments on Constitutional Interpretation
Senior advocate R Basant, representing the seven judges, argued before the bench that the petition involved the interpretation of Article 217, which governs the qualifications, appointments, tenure, and service conditions of High Court judges. He contended that Family Court judges perform judicial functions and hold judicial office in India, thereby qualifying for elevation consideration. Counsel also submitted that the petitioners could not directly approach the High Court because existing apex court rulings precluded them from securing relief at that forum.
Established Precedent on Cadre Status
Under previous Supreme Court rulings, presiding officers of Family Courts are recognized as judges in a broad and generic sense, but they are neither members of the state’s regular judicial services nor holders of a judicial office as envisioned under Article 217 of the Constitution. Consequently, under established law, they do not possess an entitlement to be considered for elevation to a High Court bench.
