New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by seven Family Court judges from Maharashtra seeking directions that they be considered for elevation to the high court under Article 217 of the Constitution.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
{{/usCountry}}"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.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate R Basant, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the plea involves a question of interpretation of Article 217 of the Constitution.
Article 217 of the Constitution outlines the appointment, qualifications, tenure, and conditions of service for judges of the high courts.
He said the petitioners cannot go to the high court because there is already a judgment by this Court which prohibits any relief.
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.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.