SUPREME INTERVENTION SC, stays HC order suspending Sengar’s lifer

 

THE Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Delhi High Court order suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and said he shall not be released from custody. A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, which was hearing the CBI’s plea challenging the High Court order, said that substantial questions of law have arisen in the matter that require consideration.

 

The apex court also issued notice to Sengar seeking his response within four weeks on the CBI’s plea. The bench said it was conscious of the fact that ordinarily when a convict or an undertrial was released on bail pursuant to an order passed by a trial court or the High Court, such order shall not be stayed by it without hearing such person. It noted that Sengar was also convicted and sentenced in a separate case and was still in custody in that matter.

 

“In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the High Court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order,” the bench said. The top court said various substantial questions of law have arisen for its consideration in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to stay the HighCourt order, sayingit was a “horrific rape” of a minor child. “This is an occasion whereIwould really urge your lordships’ conscience to stay this order.

 

We are answerable to the child who was (aged) 15 years and 10 months,” the top lawofficersaid.Healsoreferred to the aspectof‘public servant’ andsaidSengarwas thena very powerfulMLAof thearea at the relevant time. The Delhi High Court had, in its December 23 order, said that Sengar has been convicted under Section 5 (C) (aggravatedpenetrativesexualassault byapublicservant)of thePOCSO Act but an elected representative does not fit the definition of a “public servant” under Section 21 of the IPC.

 

“Is it your argument that the concept of being a ‘public servant’ is completely alien and irrelevant when the victim is a minor?” the CJI asked. Responding in the affirmative, Mehta said ‘public servant’ is not defined in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He also referred to Section 42A of the POCSO Act which says that provisions of this law shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisionsofPOCSOshallhaveoverriding effect.

 

Senior advocate N Hariharan, along with other lawyers, appeared for Sengar and opposed the CBI’s plea seekingastayon theHighCourt order. “We are only saying that the matterrequiresconsideration,” the bench said, adding that arguments advanced by Sengar’s lawyers also have weight and require in-depth consideration.