SC castigates Gujarat HC for adjourning rape survivor’s abortion plea
2 min readExpress News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court in a particular Saturday listening to castigated the Gujarat High Court over its delay in deciding a rape sufferer’s plea for medical termination of her 27-week being pregnant. The lady had approached the Gujarat High Court on August 7 searching for permission to abort her 26-week-old fetus. The court docket on August 8 constituted a medical board to determine her well being.
The board submitted its report the following day. Although it was taken on report on August 11, the matter was posted for listening to on August 23 —12 days later.
The court docket additionally rejected the itemizing of the case on August 17. A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there needs to be some sense of urgency in such circumstances, including precious time was misplaced because of the excessive court docket adjourning the case by 12 days regardless of the medical report supporting her plea for protected abortion.
“In such cases, there must be a sense of urgency and not a lackadaisical attitude…adjourning it like a normal case, we’re sorry to make these remarks,” the bench mentioned. The bench directed the medical board to submit a recent medical report by Sunday night. “The same shall be put up before this court on Monday. List this case on Monday as the first item,” it mentioned.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court in a particular Saturday listening to castigated the Gujarat High Court over its delay in deciding a rape sufferer’s plea for medical termination of her 27-week being pregnant. The lady had approached the Gujarat High Court on August 7 searching for permission to abort her 26-week-old fetus. The court docket on August 8 constituted a medical board to determine her well being.
The board submitted its report the following day. Although it was taken on report on August 11, the matter was posted for listening to on August 23 —12 days later.
The court docket additionally rejected the itemizing of the case on August 17. A bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that there needs to be some sense of urgency in such circumstances, including precious time was misplaced because of the excessive court docket adjourning the case by 12 days regardless of the medical report supporting her plea for protected abortion.googletag.cmd.push(perform() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
“In such cases, there must be a sense of urgency and not a lackadaisical attitude…adjourning it like a normal case, we’re sorry to make these remarks,” the bench mentioned. The bench directed the medical board to submit a recent medical report by Sunday night. “The same shall be put up before this court on Monday. List this case on Monday as the first item,” it mentioned.
