2010 (11) TMI 1062 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of the expression 'judicial office' in Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution.
2. Whether a 'Family Court' has the trappings of a Court and if Family Court Judges are deemed members of the Higher Judicial Services of the State.
3. Eligibility of Family Court Judges for elevation as Judge of the High Court under Article 217 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of the Expression 'Judicial Office' in Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution:
The Court examined whether the term 'judicial office' in Article 217(2)(a) includes the office held by Family Court Judges. The term 'judicial office' was not defined in the Constitution, unlike 'District Judge' or 'Judicial Service' under Article 236. The Court referred to previous judgments, including H.R. Deb and Shri Kumar Padma Prasad, which clarified that 'judicial office' implies an office primarily judicial in nature, free from executive control, and disciplined to uphold judicial independence. The Court concluded that Family Court Judges, despite performing judicial functions, do not hold a 'judicial office' as contemplated under Article 217(2)(a).

2. Whether a 'Family Court' Has the Trappings of a Court:
The Court analyzed whether Family Courts, established under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, possess the characteristics of a Court. The Family Courts were created to promote conciliation and speedy settlement of family disputes, with jurisdiction over specific matters outlined in Section 7(1) of the Act. The Court noted that Family Courts perform judicial functions akin to civil or criminal courts but within a limited jurisdiction. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., which distinguished between Courts and Tribunals, stating that Family Courts have the trappings of a Court and their Judges are 'Judges' in the generic sense.

3. Eligibility of Family Court Judges for Elevation as Judge of the High Court:
The Court examined if Family Court Judges could be considered for elevation to the High Court under Article 217. The Bombay Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 2008, excluded Family Court Judges from the cadre of Judicial Services. The Court reiterated that appointments to the post of District Judge must comply with Articles 233 and 234, which require judicial service members to be considered for such posts. The Court found that Family Court Judges, not being part of the Higher Judicial Services, do not meet the criteria for elevation to the High Court. The Court also noted the significant distinctions between the roles and functions of District Judges and Family Court Judges, emphasizing that Family Court Judges' limited jurisdiction and experience do not equate them with members of the Higher Judicial Services.

Conclusion:
The Court held that Family Court Judges, while performing judicial functions, do not hold a 'judicial office' under Article 217(2)(a) and are not part of the Judicial Services of the State of Maharashtra. Consequently, they are not eligible for elevation to the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.