Allahabad High Court challenges its own judgement, SC issues notice

The Supreme Court today issued notice in an appeal filed by the Allahabad High Court against its own judgement dealing with the question of superintendence of the High Court over family courts..The matter was heard today by a Bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R Banumathi, which issued notice to the respondent, Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Association..The High Court was represented by Advocates Jagjit Singh Chhabra and Yashvardhan..The fundamental issue in this case pertains to the contradictory rules regarding the superintendence over family courts in the state of Uttar Pradesh..Rule 36 of the Uttar Pradesh Family Courts Rules, 1995 passed by the state government says that all family courts shall function under the superintendence of the High Court..However, according to Rule 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, judges of family courts are under the administrative and disciplinary superintendence of the district judge, and under the overall control of the High court..The Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Association had moved the High Court praying that Rule 58 be struck down on the grounds that it is contradictory to Rule 36 of the 1995 Rules, and that it violates Article 235 of the Constitution of India..The Allahabad High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and directed that the matter be placed on the administrative side of the High Court for suitable amendments to be made to Rule 58, in order to effectively put family courts under the superintendence of the High Court..Aggrieved by this judgement, the Allahabad High Court moved the Supreme Court..The grounds for leave to appeal stated are that the High Court, by issuing a writ of certiorari and calling for records to be placed before the same court, was exceeding its judicial power. According to the appellant, a high court can issue a writ of certiorari only against subordinate courts and not to itself. It was contended that by doing so, the High Court has overstepped its jurisdiction and the judgement, therefore, is not good in law..Besides the point of jurisdiction, the appellant also contended that the original rule had a qualifier which made it “subject to any other rule framed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad”, and hence this condition saves Rule 58..The appellant also argued that according to the Family Courts Act, 1984, though the state government as well as the High Court have the power to frame rules with regard to the functioning of family courts, the High Court will have the final say with regard to appointments etc. in order to maintain independence of the judiciary..Additionally, the Allahabad High Court has also submitted that in view of the financial condition of the state of Uttar Pradesh, it will not be possible to appoint higher judicial service officers of the rank of district judge, as principal judge of the family court..Importantly, the High Court has also adverted to the Shetty Commission Report which, according to the High Court, “never recommended merger of cadre of family judges in general cadre”. On the contrary, these family judges were not even treated as part of normal judicial services, the petition states..After hearing the appellant today, the Supreme Court issued notice and will take up the matter at a later date..Read Order: