Criticising Gujarat High Court, the Supreme Court today said that if any court passes an order against a superior court’s order, it will be considered as the violation of constitutional philosophy.
The matter relates to a petition by a rape survivor, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s strong remarks came after the high court passed an order on Saturday, even after the Supreme Court listed the matter for today. The high court had refused relief to the petitioner, but the Supreme Court has allowed the termination of her pregnancy.
“What is happening in Gujarat High Court? No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy,” the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after it was informed of an order by the high court on Saturday.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Gujarat government, said the Saturday’s order was passed only to fix a “clerical error”. “There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” he said, adding, “We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order.”
This comes after the Supreme Court on Saturday flagged the delay by the high court in deciding the rape survivor’s petition, saying “valuable time” has been lost. The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan then said they would hear the matter today.
Criticising the “lackadaisical attitude” of the high court, the Supreme Court on Saturday issued notices to Gujarat government and others, seeking their responses on the woman’s plea.
The 25-year-old’s counsel told the Supreme Court that she approached the court on August 7 and the matter was heard the next day. The high court on August 8 directed that a medical board be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and her health condition.
A medical college examined the rape survivor and submitted its report on August 10. The report, the petitioner’s counsel said, had ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated.