Supreme Court Criticizes Gujarat High Court’s Handling of Rape Survivor’s Abortion Plea
The Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval over the Gujarat High Court’s handling of a rape survivor’s plea for abortion. The apex court’s bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, criticized the High Court for its “lackadaisical manner” in dealing with the urgent plea.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Previously, the Supreme Court had convened a special sitting to address the woman’s request to terminate her pregnancy, which was approaching 28 weeks. The court had taken issue with the Gujarat High Court’s decision to adjourn the hearing for 12 days, despite the time-sensitive nature of the plea. Subsequently, the High Court advanced the hearing to August 17, only to dismiss the petition summarily. This dismissal order was not made public until August 19, the day the Supreme Court heard the petitioner’s appeal. The apex court had then requested an explanation from the High Court registry, noting the loss of “valuable time” due to the High Court’s approach.
In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court was informed of another order issued by the Gujarat High Court on August 19, following the Supreme Court’s ruling. This order from the High Court sought to clarify its earlier decision to adjourn, explaining that the delay was to allow the counsel to consult with the rape survivor about her willingness to carry the fetus to term and potentially hand it over to the State’s facility.
Reacting to this, Justice Nagarathna expressed her dismay, stating,
“We do not appreciate the high court’s counterblast to the Supreme Court’s orders. What is happening in the High Court of Gujarat? Do judges reply like this to a superior court’s order? We do not appreciate this. There is no need for any judge of the high court to justify its order.”
Justice Bhuyan echoed these sentiments, questioning the necessity of the High Court’s ‘Suo motu’ order on August 19 and emphasizing that judges shouldn’t have to justify their decisions with subsequent orders.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, intervened, urging the bench to refrain from making comments about the High Court judge and suggesting that the order might have been a result of a misunderstanding. He said,
“There was some misunderstanding. I think Your Ladyship might leave it at that. Please ignore this. We can request the judge to withdraw this order, on behalf of the government.”
However, Justice Nagarathna responded,
“How can we ignore when the state’s counsel has brought this order to our notice?” and reiterated, “No judge can counterblast the Supreme Court’s order.”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing the rape survivor, informed the bench that the High Court’s proceedings might be publicly available since they are live-streamed on YouTube.
In its final order, the Supreme Court allowed the rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy, emphasizing the mental health implications of a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault. The court directed the hospital to provide all necessary facilities, including incubation, if the fetus survives the termination procedure. The State was also instructed to ensure the child’s adoption in accordance with the law if necessary.
Regarding the Gujarat High Court’s August 19 order, the Supreme Court chose to exercise restraint, stating,
“We restrain ourselves from saying anything on the order passed by the single judge of the high court on August 19 pursuant to the order passed by us on the said date.”
