Any court passing an order against a superior court’s ruling is unconstitutional ,a displeased Supreme Court lashes out on Gujarat High Court. Supreme Court’s heavily charged remarks came after the Gujarat High court passes an order on Saturday, originally listed by the SC for Monday. The order concerned a petition filed by a rape survivor, who sought permission to terminate her pregnancy. While the Hight Court refused any relief to the petitioner, the Supreme Court allowed an abortion.
"What is happening in Gujarat High Court? No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy," the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after being informed of the order by the High Court on Saturday.
"There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, clarifying that the Saturday’s order was passed solely to fix a “clerical error.” "We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order,” he added, representing the Gujarat govt.
The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan decided to hear the matter today, August 21, after the Supreme Court criticised the High Court’s callous attitude towards the case, saying “valuable time” had been lost. The Supreme Court issued notices to Gujarat government and others, pursuing their responses on the survivor’s plea.
The 25-year-old’s attorney told the Supreme Court that the High Court directed a medical board to be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and overall health, on August 8. A medical report was then submitted on August 10, after a thorough examination of the rape survivor. The report, however, ruled out any chance of terminating the pregnancy, said the petitioner’s counsel.
The Supreme Court also noted that the report was taken on record but the High Court on August 11 but was “strangely” listed for 12 days after, "losing sight of the fact that every day's delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case".
"In such cases, there must be, not undue urgency, but at least a sense of urgency in such matters and not a lackadaisical attitude of treating it as any normal case and just adjourning it. We are sorry to say and make this remark," the bench said. It also noted that the petitioner's attorney had informed that the status of the case showed that the High Court rejected the petition on August 17, devoid of any clarity, and was yet to be uploaded on their website.
The counsel further stressed on filing a fresh medical report, considering the petitioner would soon be approaching the 28th week of her pregnancy. The court, then, asked the petitioner to appear before the medical board again.
Following which the Supreme Court allowed the termination of pregnancy on Monday. "Subsequent to the medical procedure to be carried out, in the event the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital is to give all facilities including incubation to ensure the foetus survives. The State shall then take steps to ensure the child is adopted in accordance with law," the Supreme Court said.
