"Can't Pass Order Against Superior Court...": Supreme Court Raps High Court

The matter relates to a petition by a rape survivor, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy.

   The court was hearing a petition by a rape survivor, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today harshly criticized 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. Even after scheduling the case for today, the Supreme Court made strong comments following the high court's judgment on Saturday. The Supreme Court has approved the petitioner's pregnancy termination after the High Court had previously denied her relief.   

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. The Supreme Court panel of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said that it was against constitutional doctrine on Saturday after being informed of the high court's decision.

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 noted on Saturday that "valuable time" had been squandered due to the high court's failure to rule on the petition filed by a rape survivor. 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, criticizing the "lackadaisical attitude" of the high court and asking for their responses about the woman's appeal.

The 25-year-old's attorney informed the Supreme Court that she went to court on August 7 and the matter was heard the following day. On August 8, the top court ordered that a medical board be established to investigate the petitioner's pregnancy and general health.

On August 10, a medical college completed the victim's examination and submitted its findings. According to the petitioner's attorney, There port had decided that the pregnancy could be ended.

The report was taken into account by the high court on August 11, but "strangely," the matter wasn't listed until 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 underlined this in its ruling.

"In certain situations, there must be a sense of urgency—not excessive urgency, but at least a sense of urgency—and not a lackadaisical attitude that treats it like any other typical case and simply adjourns it. We're sorry to say and say this," The bench stated in an oral statement.

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 asked to appear before the medical board once more by the court.

The Supreme Court today approved the termination of pregnancy after conducting a new examination. "The hospital is to provide all facilities, including incubation, to ensure the foetus lives after the medical procedure is completed, in the event the foetus is confirmed to be alive. The Supreme Court ruled that the State must next take action to guarantee that the kid is legally adopted.