Supreme Court Stays Delhi HC Order Suspending Kuldeep Sengar’s Life Sentence in Unnao Rape Case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Delhi High Court order that had suspended the life sentence of expelled BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, observing that the matter raises significant questions of law, particularly concerning the interpretation of “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih was hearing a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the High Court’s December 23 order granting suspension of sentence. Senior advocates including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the CBI and Sidharth Dave and Hariharan for Sengar appeared before the court.

Describing the case as “a horrific case of rape of a child,” Solicitor General Mehta submitted that Sengar had been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. He emphasised that Sengar, as a powerful MLA at the time of the offence, exercised a dominant position over the minor victim.

“If a person is in a dominant position, it is considered an aggravated assault. In this case, he was a very powerful MLA of that area,” Mehta argued, urging the court to stay the High Court order. “We are answerable to the child,” he added.

The bench closely examined the interpretation of “public servant” under the POCSO Act. Chief Justice Kant expressed concern over the implications of excluding legislators from the definition, remarking, “We are worried that a constable shall be a public servant under the Act, but a member of the legislature will be excluded.”

The CJI also cautioned against politicising the issue, stating, “Some people are trying to gain political mileage out of this. Do not forget it is the judiciary that convicted him.” He further stressed that arguments should be made in court and not in the public domain, adding, “We are not sitting in ivory towers. Do not try to browbeat the system.”

Solicitor General Mehta clarified that the concept of a public servant should be understood contextually, focusing on whether the accused enjoyed a dominant position at the time of the offence. He also noted that amendments enhancing punishment under the law were intended to strengthen the legal response to such crimes, not to create new offences.

Counsel for Sengar raised concerns about media trial and contended that definitions from other statutes could not be imported into the POCSO Act. Acknowledging the complexity of the legal issues, the bench observed that while the High Court judges were among the finest, judicial errors could occur and warranted scrutiny.

Justice Maheshwari pointed out that the High Court’s order did not expressly address Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, which deals with sexual offences committed by a public servant.

After hearing detailed arguments, the Supreme Court noted that orders releasing convicts or undertrials are not ordinarily stayed without hearing them. However, citing the “peculiar facts” of the case and the seriousness of the offence, the bench stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court’s order dated December 23, directing that Sengar shall not be released pursuant to it.

The court issued notice in the matter and directed the filing of counter-affidavits within four weeks.

The Delhi High Court had earlier suspended Sengar’s life sentence, observing that he had already served more than seven years and five months in prison. It had imposed conditions including a personal bond of Rs 15 lakh and restrictions on contacting or approaching the survivor.

Sengar, however, continues to remain in jail due to a separate conviction in the custodial death case of the victim’s father.