Correct option is D
The Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Joshi v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that Judges of Family Courts cannot be considered for elevation as High Court Judges. The rationale behind this decision stems from the fact that the Judges of Family Courts are not considered to have the same standing as those from the regular Judiciary due to the specialized nature of their work. Family Court Judges are often appointed from the bar or are judicial officers who may not have the requisite exposure to the wide range of cases that typically come before the High Courts.
Information Booster:
The Family Courts Act, of 1984, was enacted to establish Family Courts with a view to promoting conciliation and securing speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. However, the appointment of Judges to Family Courts does not follow the same rigorous process as that of High Court Judges. This differentiation in the judicial appointment process justifies the Supreme Court's stance that Family Court Judges should not be directly elevated to High Court positions.
Additional Knowledge:
· Sanjai Aggarwal v. Union of India: This case is unrelated to the elevation of Family Court Judges; it primarily deals with other Constitutional matters.
· T.G.N. Kumar v. State of Kerala: This case addresses issues related to public administration and the role of the Judiciary in governance.
· Vishwajeet Majhi v. State of Uttarakhand: This case involves legal questions about State governance and is not related to the elevation of Judges.
