Bhubaneswar: No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy, said the Supreme Court on Monday coming down heavily on Gujarat High Court in a matter related to a petition by a rape survivor, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s strong remarks came after the High Court passed an order on Saturday, even after the Supreme Court listed the matter for today. The High Court had refused relief to the petitioner, but the Supreme Court allowed the termination of her pregnancy.
“What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after it was informed of an order by the High Court on Saturday.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Gujarat government, said Saturday’s order was passed only to fix a “clerical error”. “There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” he said, adding, “We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order,” NDTV reported.
The Supreme Court on Saturday flagged the delay by the high court in deciding the rape survivor’s petition, saying “valuable time” has been lost. The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan then said they would hear the matter today. The Supreme Court criticised the “lackadaisical attitude” of the High Court and issued notices to the Gujarat government and others, seeking their responses to the woman’s plea.
The counsel for the 25-year-old’s victim told the Supreme Court that she approached the court on August 7 and the matter was heard the next day. The High Court on August 8 directed that a medical board be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and her health condition.
In its report, the medical college ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated. The Supreme Court noted that the report was taken on record by the High Court on August 11 but “strangely”, the matter was listed 12 days later, “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 orally said.
