While the Supreme Court not only let the victim to get an abortion within 12 hours but also provided significant directions, the Gujarat High Court spent 12 essential days in permitting a rape survivor to have an abortion in the 26th week of her pregnancy.
Sources from the Supreme Court claim that on August 18 at approximately one in the morning, an attorney named Vishal Arun Mishra filed a plea on behalf of the survivor who had reached the 27th week of pregnancy due to the High Court’s lenient stance.
He brought it up in front of the Registrar on Friday, August 18. Around 9:30 p.m., Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was apprised of it.
The CJI instructed the Registrar to approach Justice BV Nagarathna whether she could have a special hearing the next morning due to the gravity of the issue.
Sources claim that Justice Nagarathna accepted right away, and the Chief Justice of India assembled a bench including her and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan to hear the case.
The hearing was opened by the bench at 10:30 on Saturday. It questioned the Gujarat High Court’s delay and established a new medical board with the directive to submit the findings within 24 hours, by Sunday evening.
Medical reports reviewed
After reviewing the Medical Board’s report, the Supreme Court permitted the 28-week pregnant lady to undergo an abortion on Monday.
The hospital is required to provide all facilities, including incubation, in the event that the foetus is discovered to be alive following the medical operation to be performed. The Supreme Court’s ruling said that the State must subsequently take action to guarantee that the kid is legally adopted.
For humanitarian reasons, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta proposed that if the fetus is still alive after the abortion, the government should care for it before pursuing adoption.
Mr. Mehta brought up a previous situation in which a teenager who had first insisted on having her pregnancy terminated was eventually convinced to give birth, and the child was thereafter placed for adoption as a result of a Supreme Court judgment.
The ability to email has also been added in CJI Chandrachud’s standard operating procedure created for hearing urgent cases, according to sources in the top court. Daily oversight of this is done by the CJI.
In order to establish a bench and have a timely hearing, the Registrar has been asked to alert the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to urgent concerns.
The Supreme Court was dissatisfied because, despite having scheduled the case for Sunday, the top court issued a ruling on Saturday. The petitioner had been denied remedy by the high court.
No court is authorised to overturn SC
What’s going on in the Gujarat High Court? In India, no court has the authority to overturn a ruling made by a higher court. It is inconsistent with constitutional theory,” it had stated.
It did, however, accede to SG Tushar Mehta’s plea that no remarks about the High Court be made.
However, Justice Nagarathna noted during his oral observations that the High Court had wasted important time.
Also read: “Loss Of Important Documents By Manipur Violence Victims Must Be Looked Into” Says SC
The 25-year-old survivor claimed that on August 4, the pregnancy was discovered. The Supreme Court was informed by her attorney that she appeared before the court on August 7 and that the issue was heard the following day. On August 8, the high court ordered the creation of a medical board to investigate the petitioner’s pregnancy and general health.
Rape victim examined
On August 10, a medical school conducted an examination of the rape victim and delivered its findings. The study, according to the petitioner’s attorney, had determined that the pregnancy could be ended, but the High Court postponed the case until August 17 and never even issued an order.
Also read: IPS Officer Shares a Picture of Money Kept Inside Answer Sheet To Get Passing Scores
When the petitioner learned that her request had been denied, she went to the Supreme Court’s doors and pleaded her case.
The report was taken into consideration by the top court on August 11; nevertheless, 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 haste, but at least a sense of urgency in such issues and not a lax attitude of treating it like any other routine case and just adjourning it. We regret having to express and comment in this way,” the bench added orally.
