SC stays ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengars suspension of life sentence: What CBI told the court
The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court's order suspending the life sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the CBI, highlighting that the conviction involved a minor survivor and that Sengar, as a public servant, committed the offense under Section 376 IPC. The apex court also issued a notice to Sengar while examining key aspects of the POCSO Act and rape laws, emphasizing the enhanced punishment for offenders in position
New Delhi: In the latest development in the Unnao rape case, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s order that had suspended the life sentence of expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The apex court also issued a notice to Sengar on the CBI’s appeal challenging the High Court order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, highlighted facts that the Delhi High Court had allegedly overlooked. He emphasized that Sengar’s conviction accounted for all circumstances of the crime and that the offense was committed by a public servant.
How did the facts backfire on Sengar?
While discussing the provisions under Section 376 of the IPC, Mehta noted that the survivor was only 15 years and 10 months old at the time of the incident, which is why the POCSO Act was invoked. The SG distinguished two key aspects of Section 376, arguing that Sengar had been convicted under rape under Section 375, and further, that if the rape is committed by a person in a position of dominance, the minimum sentence is 20 years and can extend to life imprisonment.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) noted Mehta’s argument, interpreting it under Section 376(2)(i). He added that even if the victim is not a minor, the minimum sentence under Section 376(i) would still apply. The CJI questioned whether Mehta’s argument implied that if the victim is a minor, the High Court’s order is inappropriate because the accused cannot be considered a public servant.
The SG stated that the relevant provision has now been amended, specifying that the minimum sentence is 20 years. However, Justice J.K. Maheshwari noted that the amendment was not in effect at the time the crime was committed, and therefore the earlier provision (Section 376(i)) applied.
Sengar’s influential status aggravates the seriousness of the case
The SG then countered Maheswari, claiming whether it is Section 376(1) or 376(2), life imprisonment remains applicable, and the punishment could be either 20 years or life imprisonment. The CJI asked whether, if the victim is a minor, the concept of a public servant becomes irrelevant. The SG confirmed, pointing out that penetrative sexual assault is a serious crime, and Section 4 of the Act provides for punishment. After the amendment, certain situations—such as when the offender is in a dominant position over the victim—make the offense more serious.
The SG referred to arguments made by Sengar’s lawyer in the High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in the A.R. Antulay case. He noted that the previous case involved corruption, while this is a POCSO case, and therefore Sengar cannot be considered a public servant under the Act.
He further explained with examples: if a constable or an army officer commits such an act while on duty, they would still be guilty of aggravated sexual assault. The SG clarified that the definition of a public servant in this Act is borrowed from the IPC, but it must be interpreted according to context.
How did 'dominant position' impact the entire hearing?
Hearing the argument, the CJI then concluded that a public servant is someone in a dominant position at the time of the offense —for instance, when someone approaches a legislator for help. Any act committed in such a position is considered a serious offense.
The SG noted that even if Sengar is not considered a public servant under Section 5, he would still fall under Section 3. The amendment did not create a new offense but enhanced the punishment, and the legislature intended to take the offense seriously as it is against societal morality.
The CBI sought a stay on the High Court’s order, and the Supreme Court granted it. The CJI noted that, generally, the court does not restrict a person’s liberty if they are outside the court’s jurisdiction, but in this case, Sengar is already in jail in another matter.
The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order, which had stayed Sengar’s conviction, and issued notices on the CBI’s petition and to Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The Court clarified that it would consider the interpretation of whether Sengar is a public servant and other legal questions at a later date.