The Supreme Court reprimanded the Gujarat High Court for its lack of urgency in reaching a decision on the abortion plea of a woman who is 26 weeks pregnant. Despite receiving a medical report in favor of termination, the High Court scheduled the hearing 12 days later. The Supreme Court ordered a fresh medical examination as the woman is now over 27 weeks pregnant. Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan assembled on Saturday to grant an urgent hearing and directed that the examination take place that day, with the report filed by 6 pm on Sunday.
The bench stressed the need for urgency in such cases and expressed disappointment in the High Court’s lackadaisical approach. It emphasized that this matter should not be treated as ordinary and adjourned, remarking, “We are sorry to make this remark.” The bench further requested the Supreme Court registry to contact the registrar general of the High Court to ascertain whether the order had been uploaded. It stated that it could not proceed with the case without obtaining the High Court’s order.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the woman is now four days away from reaching 28 weeks of pregnancy, necessitating a fresh medical examination to assess the safety of termination. Agreeing with this submission, the bench directed for a new medical report.
Advocate Shashank Singh, representing the petitioner, informed the court that she had approached the High Court on August 7, and her plea was heard the following day. On August 11, a medical board, established on the High Court’s directive, submitted a report supporting termination. However, the case was scheduled for a hearing on August 23, a delay of 12 days. The petitioner discovered that the case status on the High Court website showed the petition had been rejected, and the order had not been uploaded. Noting the sequence of events as alleged by the petitioner, the bench emphasized that time is crucial in such cases and criticized the High Court for wasting valuable time. It stated, “We find that valuable time has been lost between August 11, when the report was placed before the High Court, and the order stating that the matter would stand over to August 23.”
