New Delhi: In a recent turn of events, the Supreme Court has expressed its strong disapproval of the Gujarat high court’s approach towards a 25-year-old rape survivor’s plea for an abortion. The apex court’s intervention on Monday, August 21, permitted the woman to proceed with the termination of her pregnancy after medical professionals deemed her fit for the procedure.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the high court’s single-judge bench dismissed the woman’s petition on August 17, as reported by Bar and Bench. However, in a surprising twist, it was revealed that the high court had convened on Saturday, post the Supreme Court’s directive for a medical examination, and subsequently rejected the abortion plea.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, one of the presiding judges, questioned the state’s lawyer, “Are you supporting this? We do not appreciate the high court passing an order as a counterblast to our order. What is happening in Gujarat high court?”
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, echoing the sentiment, added, “No court in India can pass an order like this on a Saturday against a superior court order. Without giving notice to the other side.”
Justice Nagarathna further expressed her astonishment at the high court’s audacity to pass an order on a matter that had already been disposed of. “There was no need for the high court to justify,” she remarked.
Representing the Gujarat government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta attributed the high court’s second order to a “clerical error” and a “misunderstanding”. However, the Supreme Court remained skeptical of this explanation.
According to LiveLaw, the apex court was notably dissatisfied with the high court’s overall handling of the case, labeling it as “lackadaisical”.
- The high court had initially postponed the matter by 12 days, despite its pressing nature, only to advance the hearing to August 17 and then summarily dismiss the petition.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that such delays had cost the woman “valuable time”.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you believe the high court’s handling of the case was appropriate?
Share your views in the comments below.
Be the first to comment