The Supreme Court docket on Monday refused to entertain a plea by seven Household Court docket judges from Maharashtra looking for a declaration that they maintain “judicial workplace” for the aim of eligibility for appointment as Excessive Court docket judges beneath Article 217 of the Structure.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana held that the difficulty had already been conclusively handled by the Supreme Court docket in its earlier judgment in S.D. Joshi and Others v. Excessive Court docket of Judicature at Bombay and One other [(2011) 1 SCC 252], which had held that the publish of a Household Court docket decide in a separate cadre couldn’t be handled as a “judicial workplace” for the needs of Article 217(2)(a).
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R Basant, urged the Court docket to revisit the sooner ruling in mild of modified circumstances, notably the way by which Household Court docket judges have been appointed in Maharashtra over the previous 36 years.
Basant submitted that every one seven petitioners had been appointed beneath the Household Courts Recruitment Guidelines and had accomplished greater than seven years of service, with the primary 4 having accomplished no less than ten years as Household Court docket judges. Some had spent as many as 26 years in judicial service, first as subordinate judges and subsequently as Household Court docket judges.
“This includes a query of interpretation of Article 217,” Basant stated, explaining why the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court docket immediately. He argued that they may not search reduction from the Excessive Court docket as a result of the Supreme Court docket had already dominated on the difficulty in SD Joshi.
Justice Bagchi identified on the outset that the sooner judgment “clearly solutions the difficulty in opposition to your purchasers.”
Basant accepted that place however argued that the judgment ought to be reconsidered due to modified factual circumstances.
He identified that the Maharashtra Excessive Court docket had reported that for the final 36 years, no individual from outdoors the judicial service had been recruited as a Household Court docket decide within the State.
“These officers of the judicial service have written an examination, handed it after which been appointed as judges of the Household Court docket. So that they have at all times been officers of the judicial service,” Basant submitted.
He additionally referred to the Supreme Court docket’s choice in Rejanish v.Deepa, arguing that it had eliminated any disqualification stopping such Household Court docket judges from showing for choice as District Judges.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, nevertheless, noticed that the Rajnish judgment didn’t deal with the interpretation of Article 217.
Basant agreed, explaining that his argument was as a substitute primarily based on Article 217(2)(a), which allows eligibility to be established via a mix of years of apply on the Bar and years spent holding a judicial workplace.
He submitted that the expression “judicial workplace” had been interpreted restrictively in SD Joshi, after the Court docket in contrast the features of Household Court docket judges with these of judges belonging to the common District Decide cadre.
Based on Basant, the sooner judgment had been influenced by the truth that the Household Courts Act permitted individuals apart from members of the judicial service to be appointed to Household Courts.
He argued that the factual place in Maharashtra had since advanced.
“For the final 36 years, not one has been appointed from that supply. All those that have been appointed have been both judicial officers or advocates having the requisite service and requisite standing on the Bar,” Basant stated.
He argued that there was due to this fact now not a justification to disclaim Household Court docket judges the standing of holding judicial workplace for the restricted function of Article 217.
CJI questions separate Household Court docket cadre
The Chief Justice, in the course of the listening to, questioned the creation of a separate cadre for Household Courts in Maharashtra.
The CJI famous that in most States, Household Court docket judges are drawn from the common judicial service and are posted to Household Courts on deputation. Such judges retain their standing as judicial officers and might subsequently return to the mainstream judicial cadre.
“You might have an unique cadre for Household Courts. It’s a separate cadre. You do not cope with prison issues. You do not cope with different issues. The issue lies some other place. The issue lies within the creation of a separate cadre for Household Courts,” CJI Surya Kant noticed.
The Court docket famous that the petitioners’ argument, in substance, appeared to hunt an eventual merger of the separate Household Court docket cadre with the mainstream judicial cadre.
Basant acknowledged {that a} request for such a merger had been made in SD Joshi however stated the current plea was narrower.
“I can not repeat that request now. That was not allowed. My solely query is, for the aim of Article 217, a Household Court docket decide holding the publish of Decide of the Household Court docket should be held to be holding a judicial workplace,” he submitted.
The CJI identified that in most States the difficulty didn’t come up in the identical method as a result of Household Court docket judges had been typically drawn from the District Decide cadre and despatched to Household Courts on deputation.
“They do not lose their standing as judicial officers for the needs of Article 217(2)(a),” the CJI noticed.
No have to revisit the precedent : Court docket
The Bench repeatedly questioned whether or not there had been any change in regulation or info substantial sufficient to justify reconsidering the sooner judgment.
“So until and till there may be any change, factually or legally, why ought to we revisit this situation? Rejanish actually does not contact this situation,” the CJI stated.
Basant agreed that Rejanish didn’t immediately deal with the query.
The CJI then noticed that the choice would successfully require the Supreme Court docket to doubt and overrule SD Joshi.
Justice Bagchi equally famous that the petition beneath Article 32 may survive provided that the Bench was ready to query the correctness of the sooner judgment with a view to overruling it.
“If you’d like us to doubt the ratio of Joshi and entertain it for the aim of overruling it, you should give us some opposite judgment, some alternate interpretation of Article 217 which was not thought-about,” Justice Bagchi advised Basant.
Justice Bagchi additional identified that SD Joshi had undertaken an in depth comparability of the features of judges within the District Decide cadre and people carried out by Household Court docket judges and had discovered that they weren’t equal.
The Bench additionally famous that the sooner judgment had thought-about the therapy of Household Courts alongside tribunals and different specialised adjudicatory our bodies earlier than concluding that Household Court docket judges couldn’t be handled as equal to judges of the common judicial cadre.
The Supreme Court docket instructed that if the petitioners wished to handle the structural downside created by the separate Household Court docket cadre, they may strategy the State authorities and the Excessive Court docket on the executive and coverage facet.
The Court docket noticed that in States the place a separate Household Court docket cadre exists, a coverage choice may probably be taken to abolish the separate cadre and make Household Court docket postings transferable amongst members of the upper judicial service.
The CJI additionally questioned Basant as to why the State authorities and Excessive Court docket couldn’t rework the foundations in session with one another.
Basant, nevertheless, argued that the present interpretation in SD Joshi prevented the Excessive Court docket from doing so with out the Supreme Court docket first revisiting the judgment.
The CJI disagreed and requested counsel to contemplate what the related statutory provision truly required.
Basant submitted that the relevant provisions contemplated an individual being a District Decide or being able to being appointed as a District Decide, and didn’t expressly require equivalence with a District Decide. He argued that the fundamental requirement was seven years’ expertise as a judicial officer or seven years’ standing as an advocate.
He additionally identified that though sure different classes of presidency officers may technically enter the Household Court docket system, no such appointments had been made in Maharashtra for 36 years.
Finally, the Bench declined to entertain the writ petition.
In its order, the Court docket held that the query raised by the petitioners had already been answered in opposition to them in SD Joshi and that the current Article 32 petition primarily sought a overview or recall of that judgment.
“The writ petition primarily seeks overview/recall of that judgment. It appears to us {that a} writ petition beneath Article 32 is just not apt recourse to hunt overview of judgment of this Court docket,” the Bench stated.
The Court docket additional held that the petitioners had not made out a case throughout the current authorized framework to warrant interference.
It instructed that the petitioners may as a substitute strategy the involved Excessive Court docket and State authorities to contemplate reformulating the foundations governing appointments to Household Courts, notably in mild of the completely different preparations adopted in different States.
“This could primarily be a coverage matter, for which the HC and State govt could in session with one another take acceptable choice,” the Court docket stated.
Case : INDRAKALA JOGINDER NANDA Vs HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY | D No. 38854/2026
