Supreme Court Upholds Previous Ruling on Family Court Judges
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed its stance that judges from Maharashtra’s distinct family court cadre do not qualify as holding a “judicial office” under Article 217 of the Constitution, thus making them ineligible for appointment as High Court judges. The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana.
Petition by Family Court Judges
A group of seven family court judges from Maharashtra had petitioned the apex court, seeking a directive to recognize them as holding judicial office for the purpose of elevation to the High Court. Represented by Senior Advocate R Basant, the petitioners argued for a reassessment of the 2010 ruling in ST Joshi v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, citing significant changes in the appointment practices of family court judges in Maharashtra over the past 36 years.
Arguments and Court’s Response
Senior Advocate R Basant contended that the precedent set in the ST Joshi case was obstructing Maharashtra from restructuring its judicial cadre. However, CJI Surya Kant noted that no substantial legal or factual changes had occurred to warrant revisiting the previous decision. He pointed out that the core issue stems from Maharashtra’s establishment of a separate cadre for family court judges, distinct from the State’s judicial service.
Comparative Analysis with Other States
The bench drew comparisons with other states where district judges are appointed to family courts and later reintegrated into the general judicial service. Such judges retain their status as judicial officers, thereby avoiding the complications faced under Article 217(2)(a). Justice Bagchi emphasized that the petitioners would need to present a conflicting precedent or a new interpretation of Article 217 to challenge the existing ruling.
Path Forward Suggested by the Court
While the Supreme Court upheld the ST Joshi verdict, it suggested that a viable solution might involve the Maharashtra State Government and the Bombay High Court revising the recruitment rules to integrate family court posts into the judicial service. This, the Court noted, would circumvent the issues raised by the petitioners.
The court clarified that reformulating the rules for the appointment of family court judges is essentially a policy matter, requiring cooperation between the High Court and the State Government.
