Supreme Court Condemns Gujarat High Court's Decision Against Superior Court Ruling on Rape Survivor's Pregnancy Termination

The Supreme Court has taken strong action against the Gujarat High Court, stating that any court opposing a superior court's decision goes against constitutional principles.

This matter pertains to a rape survivor's plea to terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court issued these stern comments after the high court made a ruling on Saturday, despite the Supreme Court scheduling the matter for today. The high court denied relief to the petitioner, while the Supreme Court permitted the pregnancy termination.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed its concerns about the situation in the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that no court in India should counter a ruling by a higher court, as this contradicts constitutional values. This statement followed the high court's decision on Saturday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, clarified that the Saturday order aimed to correct a "clerical error." He described it as a misunderstanding and expressed the state government's intention to request the judge to revoke the order.

Earlier, the Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat High Court for delaying the decision on the rape survivor's petition, citing the loss of "valuable time." Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan decided to address the matter on the same day.

The Supreme Court faulted the high court's "lackadaisical attitude" and sent notices to the Gujarat government and other relevant parties to respond to the woman's plea.

The woman's counsel informed the Supreme Court that she initially approached the court on August 7, and the case was heard the next day. On August 8, the high court instructed the formation of a medical board to assess the petitioner's pregnancy and health condition.

Following a medical examination by a college, a report was submitted on August 10, indicating that the pregnancy could be terminated.

The Supreme Court pointed out that while the high court accepted the report on August 11, there was a delay of 12 days before the matter was listed again. The court expressed concern over this delay considering the gravity of the situation and criticized the lack of urgency shown.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioner's counsel had informed them that the high court had rejected the petition on August 17 without providing reasons. The order had not yet been posted on the high court's website.

The petitioner's counsel indicated that she would soon reach the 28th week of pregnancy and requested a new medical report. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to reappear before the medical board.

Following the fresh examination, the Supreme Court permitted the pregnancy termination today. The court stated that if the fetus is found to be alive after the procedure, the hospital must provide necessary facilities, including incubation, to ensure its survival. Additionally, the State was instructed to take steps for the legal adoption of the child.