The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong displeasure at the Gujarat High Court’s “counterblast” to its criticism about the manner in which a 25-year-old rape survivor’s plea for abortion was handled by the High Court.
The apex court had held a special session on Saturday, August 19, on an appeal filed by the woman, seeking an urgent hearing of her plea to medically terminate the pregnancy, which was already nearing 28 weeks.
A Special Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which heard the case on August 19, immediately ordered the woman to be medically examined and scheduled the case on August 21 for orders.
The Saturday hearing had seen the Bench criticise the Gujarat High Court for adjourning the case for 12 whole days, defeating the woman’s race against time to get an abortion, and eventually dismiss it.
Explained | What are India’s laws on abortions?
On Monday, Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan were informed by lawyers that the Gujarat High Court had convened a suo motu hearing in the same case, shortly after the Supreme Court hearing had ended on Saturday.
The apex court Bench was informed that the High Court had passed an order to “clarify” that the adjournment was given to obtain her view on whether she was willing to give her child into State custody.
This upset the Bench even more. Justice Bhuyan said an unjust condition could not be perpetuated on a rape survivor.
“How can you force the rape survivor to undergo pregnancy?” Justice Bhuyan asked.
Justice Nagarathna questioned the very need for the Gujarat High Court to convene a suo motu hearing in a case it had already dismissed, that too, shortly after the Supreme Court had heard it in appeal.
“We do not appreciate the counterblast by the High Court to the order of the Supreme Court. What is happening in the High Court of Gujarat?” Justice Nagarathna asked in open court.
The Bench noted that the order of the Single Judge of the High Court was against settled procedure and orders.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat Government, made an effort to pacify the Bench, saying there was some misunderstanding and it would be demoralising for the High Court judge if anything went on record from the side of the Supreme Court.
But the Bench did not relent, maintaining there could not be a counterblast to the Supreme Court’s order. The Bench said it was not targeting a particular judge but questioning the procedure followed in such a time-sensitive case.
The apex court, however, refrained from recording anything adverse in its order against the High Court while allowing the plea for medical termination of the pregnancy.
The Bench noted that a woman has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity. It said pregnancy caused by a sexual assault was injurious to the mental health of the survivor.
The court ordered that the foetus be provided medical support and incubation in case it survived and the State should ensure that the child was adopted in accordance with the law.
