In a recent turn of events, the Gujarat High Court (HC) has once again found itself at the center of controversy, drawing criticism from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has taken issue with the HC’s response, which can be described as a “counterblast” to the apex court’s previous order. This order from the Supreme Court had highlighted its disapproval of the lackadaisical approach taken by the Gujarat HC in handling the plea of a 25-year-old woman seeking medical termination of pregnancy.
Delays and Dismissals Prompt Supreme Court’s Rebuke
The incident unfolded when a bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the Gujarat HC’s handling of an abortion plea had caused significant delays. Moreover, the HC had dismissed the plea without uploading the corresponding order. Expressing dissatisfaction with these actions, the bench took issue with the HC’s response to the situation. The Supreme Court was informed that the HC had issued a reasoned order on the same day as the apex court’s hearing, leading to further frustration.
Supreme Court Questions Gujarat High Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court bench raised concerns over the Gujarat HC’s response, questioning whether such a counterblast was appropriate in response to a superior court’s orders. The judges expressed their disapproval of the HC’s actions, referring to them as attempts by the high court to circumvent the directives laid out by the Supreme Court. The bench emphasized that there was no necessity for any judge within the high court to justify their orders in this manner.
Lack of Notice and Surprising Actions
The bench further highlighted its surprise at the Gujarat HC’s ability to issue an order in a case that had already been resolved. This was particularly notable considering that the order was passed without giving any prior notice to the relevant party. The bench stressed that no court in India should be able to issue an order of this nature against a superior court’s directive, especially on a Saturday. The Supreme Court bench firmly stated that the high court’s justification was unnecessary and unwarranted in this context.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state government, addressed the court and clarified that a misunderstanding had led to the judge’s order. Mehta requested the court to refrain from making any adverse observations against the judge. The bench clarified that its concern was not directed at the judge personally but rather at the manner in which the situation had been handled. The bench firmly stated that no judge should issue an order in response to its directives in a manner that seemed like a counterblast.
Court’s Consideration and Medical Report
Subsequently, the court carefully examined the new medical report provided by the petitioner. This updated report favored the termination of the pregnancy. In light of this information, the court granted permission for the petitioner to proceed with the abortion. The bench acknowledged the potential harm to a woman’s mental health when facing pregnancy outside of marriage, particularly following a sexual assault.
Court’s Reaction to HC’s Delay
During a special hearing held on a Saturday, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Gujarat High Court’s delay in promptly addressing the abortion plea of a woman who was 26 weeks pregnant. The court noted that the hearing was scheduled 12 days after receiving a medical report that recommended termination. In response, the bench directed a re-examination of the medical assessment, as the pregnancy had advanced beyond 27 weeks.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s response to the Supreme Court’s order has sparked criticism and concern. The Supreme Court bench has voiced its disapproval of the HC’s counterblast, urging a more aligned and respectful approach to its directives. The incident has prompted discussions about the appropriate conduct and interactions between various levels of the judicial system in India. The proceedings showcased the Solicitor General’s explanation for the judge’s order and the bench’s focus on the appropriate handling of such matters. The court’s attention to the petitioner’s medical report and its stance on the timeliness of addressing critical issues underscore the significance of careful consideration and procedural diligence in legal matters.
