Remarks Gujarat HC must ponder over

An exasperated SC wondered what was happening in Gujarat High Court.

The Supreme Court’s comments on the Gujarat High Court this week went beyond an expression of disapproval of a particular order made by the High Court, or of an opinion on an administrative or procedural matter.

The court’s question “What’s happening in the High Court of Gujarat” was an expression of extreme displeasure, especially when seen in the background of earlier comments made by it on the High Court. The court has in the past remarked that the judgements of the Gujarat High Court made interesting reading. That was not a positive comment but could be considered as a criticism or a sarcastic remark on the court’s judgements. It should be noted that these comments were not just about particular judgements but about the court as such after it took controversial decisions. Coming from the Supreme Court that raises important issues.  

The Supreme Court made its latest comment in the context of a case which was taken to it in appeal against a Gujarat High Court order. The case pertained to a rape survivor’s petition seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy. The High Court put off a decision on it for a week though the pregnancy was in an advanced stage. The Supreme Court held a special sitting on Saturday to speed up the matter and said it would hear the case on Monday. But the High Court held a sitting even after the top court’s hearing, to check if the petitioner was willing to give the child in adoption, and suggested that the petitioner should go ahead with her pregnancy. It amounted to the High Court reviewing the relief the top court had given to the petitioner.

The Supreme Court said that the High Court’s action was a counter-blast and observed: “No court in India can pass an order against a superior court order. It is against constitutional philosophy.” The Constitution and the laws ensure justice for a victim and that cannot be denied by a High Court. 

What the Supreme Court meant was that the High Court acted against the constitutional philosophy, and not just erred in evaluating and judging a particular case. This is a serious matter. Lower courts are bound by the Constitution to abide by higher courts’ decisions and the Supreme Court has underlined the importance of the hierarchy. The Gujarat High Court’s action amounted to undermining it.

The same judge of the High Court had passed controversial orders in another case relating to a rape survivor and quoted the Manusmriti in his order. The Supreme Court’s words will hopefully have a positive impact, and the court should ensure that.