“Can’t Pass An Order Against Superior Court…”: Supreme Court Criticises High Court

The Supreme Court today harshly criticised the Gujarat High Court, stating that any court that issues an order overturning a decision of a higher court is in violation of constitutional principles.

It concerns a petition filed by a rape victim asking for authorization to end her pregnancy. The Supreme Court made its pointed comments after the high court issued an order on Saturday, despite the fact that it had already scheduled the case for today. Although the petitioner had been denied relief by the high court, the Supreme Court has now approved the termination of her pregnancy.

“What is happening in Gujarat High Court? In India, no court has the authority to overturn a ruling made by a higher court. After being notified of a decision by the high court on Saturday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said, “It is against constitutional principles.

The Gujarat government was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who claimed that the Saturday order was only made to correct a “clerical error”. “The earlier order contained a clerical error, which was corrected on Saturday. It was an error, he added, adding that the state government would ask the judge to revoke the ruling.

This comes after the Supreme Court raised the issue of the high court’s delay in ruling on the petition filed by a rape survivor on Saturday, stating that “valuable time” had been lost. The justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan then announced that the case would be heard today.

The Supreme Court on Saturday sent notifications to the Gujarat government and other parties, criticising the “lackadaisical attitude” of the high court and asking for their comments about the woman’s appeal.

The 25-year-old’s attorney informed the Supreme Court that the case was heard the next day after she appeared before the court on August 7. On August 8, the high court ordered the creation of a medical board to investigate the petitioner’s pregnancy and general health.

On August 10, a medical school conducted an examination of the rape victim and delivered its findings. The petitioner’s attorney stated that the report had determined that the pregnancy may be ended.

The report was taken into consideration by the high court on August 11; however, the subject was “strangely” 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,” the Supreme Court stated.

“In these circumstances, there must be, if not excessive urgency, but at least a sense of urgency in such issues and not a lax attitude of treating it like any other routine case and simply adjourning it. We regret having to express and say this,” the bench remarked orally.

The bench also took note of the petitioner’s attorney’s statement that the high court had rejected the plea on August 17 without providing any explanations, and that the order had not yet been posted on the high court’s website.

The petitioner’s attorney then informed the court that the petitioner will soon be in the 28th week of pregnancy and suggested that a new medical report be requested. The petitioner was then ordered by the court to show up once more before the medical board.

The Supreme Court today approved pregnancy termination following the new examination. The hospital is required to provide all facilities, including incubation, in the event that the foetus is discovered to be alive following the medical procedure to be performed. The Supreme Court ruled that the State must thereafter take action to guarantee that the kid is adopted in conformity with the law.