In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Delhi High Court order that had granted bail and suspended the life sentence of former Uttar Pradesh Ex-MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. The bench said the matter raises “serious questions of law” and requires deeper examination before Sengar can be released.
A vacation bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari, and Justice Augustine George Masih passed the order while hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to the High Court verdict.
Background of the Case
Sengar was convicted by a Delhi trial court in 2019 for raping a minor girl, an offence falling under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). He was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
Read also:- Jharkhand High Court Orders Eviction from RIMS Land, Directs 72-Hour Clearance of Illegal Encroachments
In December, the Delhi High Court suspended his sentence on the grounds that the stricter provisions of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5 of the POCSO Act were not applicable because Sengar, as an MLA, could not be treated as a “public servant” for the purpose of that section.
The CBI appealed, arguing this interpretation was flawed.
Key Courtroom Exchanges
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for CBI, argued that the High Court’s view was legally dangerous. According to him, treating an MLA as outside the definition of “public servant” under POCSO could set a precedent that shields lawmakers.
“This is not just a technical issue,” he submitted. “A person holding public power and influence misusing it against a child should fall within aggravated offence. The law cannot allow domination to become immunity.”
Read also:- Delhi HC Strikes Down Absolute Bar on Court Review in Civil Defence Volunteer Dismissals
The Bench engaged with the argument closely. At one point, the Chief Justice remarked:
“We are worried that a constable would qualify as a public servant, but a Member of Legislative Assembly would be excluded. That interpretation appears troubling.”
The Bench also noted that the High Court’s view seemed to rely heavily on literal reading rather than the purpose and protection-oriented nature of POCSO.
Debate Over ‘Public Servant’ Under POCSO
The court observed that the question cannot be ignored, as it may shape future trials involving influential persons. It hinted that the definition of "public servant" may need to be understood in context rather than copied mechanically from another statute.
“Legal issue requires consideration,” the Chief Justice stated. “We are all prone to errors, but this interpretation may affect the functioning of the Act.”
Read also:- Bombay HC Pulls Up Authorities for Rejecting Farmer's Compensation Plea on Technical Grounds
Senior advocates for Sengar argued that penal statutes must be strictly interpreted, and an MLA cannot automatically be treated as a public servant unless the Act expressly provides for it. They insisted that the trial court’s conviction leaned on an imported definition.
The Bench responded that the concern was not just classification, but the broader object of the law:
“POCSO is meant to protect children. Interpretation must further the purpose, not restrict it.”
Concerns on Survivor Safety
The CBI also flagged safety risks in case of release, pointing to Sengar’s influence and past history. The Solicitor General noted that Sengar continues to serve a sentence in a separate case, including the conviction relating to the death of the survivor’s father.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Orders Injunction Against Oziel Pharma for ‘PEPFIZ’ & ‘MINOZ’ Trademark Infringement
“We urge for stay. The court owes a duty to ensure the victim is not exposed to intimidation,” the SG said.
Supreme Court’s Decision
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court order. The Bench clarified that Sengar will not be released from custody based on the suspended sentence order.
The court said:
“Issue notice. Counter may be filed within four weeks. In the peculiar facts of this case, we stay operation of the High Court order. The respondent shall not be released pursuant to it.”
No future outcome was discussed. The matter will now proceed to determine the legal issues raised.
