The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Delhi High Court order granting bail to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case has once again brought the long-running matter into sharp national focus. The apex court’s intervention, delivered on December 29, put on hold the suspension of Sengar’s life sentence, ensuring that he remains in custody while the court examines significant questions of law arising from the case.
The stay followed intense public scrutiny of the High Court’s decision, which had triggered nationwide outrage and protests, including demonstrations by the survivor and her mother at Delhi’s India Gate. While the Supreme Court’s order is interim in nature, it has reopened wider debates on judicial accountability, the scope of the POCSO Act, and the continuing vulnerabilities faced by survivors of sexual violence involving powerful accused persons.
Why the Supreme Court Intervened
The Supreme Court stepped in after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the Delhi High Court’s December 23 order, which had suspended Sengar’s life sentence pending appeal and granted him conditional bail. The High Court had accepted the defence argument that Sengar, though an elected legislator, did not fall within the category of a “public servant” under Section 5(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated sexual assault.
On this basis, the High Court held that the offence could not be treated as aggravated, reducing the applicable punishment to a minimum seven-year sentence, a term Sengar had already completed. The sentence was therefore suspended, leading to the bail order that sparked widespread criticism.
The Supreme Court indicated that the matter raises serious questions of law warranting close scrutiny. Notably, the Bench observed that while courts are generally reluctant to stay a bail order without hearing the convict, the present case involved peculiar facts and circumstances, including Sengar’s conviction in a separate case relating to the custodial death of the survivor’s father. The court also remarked that judicial accountability extends beyond statutory interpretation to the survivor and the integrity of the justice system.
The High Court Order and Its Fallout
The Delhi High Court’s ruling attracted sharp criticism for adopting what many saw as a narrow and technical reading of the POCSO Act. Legal observers argued that such an interpretation failed to account for the real-world authority and influence exercised by an elected MLA over a minor victim, particularly in a socio-political context where power imbalances are stark.
The order triggered public protests, with the survivor stating that she feared for her life if Sengar were released. Activists and legal experts questioned whether conditional bail and movement restrictions could meaningfully safeguard a survivor who has faced years of intimidation, delay, and alleged institutional failure.
CBI’s Challenge and the Legal Question
Before the Supreme Court, the CBI argued that the High Court’s reasoning was contrary to the object of the POCSO Act, which is designed to offer enhanced protection to children against sexual offences. The agency submitted that an elected MLA occupies a constitutional position of trust and authority, and excluding legislators from the ambit of aggravated offences would weaken the statute’s protective framework.
The prosecution also warned that the High Court’s interpretation could create an anomalous situation, where lower-ranking officials are treated as public servants while lawmakers exercising substantial influence are excluded. While the Supreme Court has not expressed a final opinion, it appeared persuaded that the issue requires detailed consideration, prompting the stay on the bail order.
A Case Marked by Allegations of Intimidation and Violence
The Unnao case is among the most disturbing criminal cases in recent years. The survivor, who cannot be named under Indian law, alleged that in June 2017, when she was 17 years old, she approached Sengar seeking help with employment and was kidnapped and raped over several days.
Her allegations initially failed to gain traction. The case drew national attention only in 2018, when she attempted to self-immolate outside the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s residence, accusing the police of inaction. At the time, Sengar was an influential BJP legislator, with the party in power both in the state and at the Centre. He was later expelled from the party.
Months before Sengar’s conviction in December 2019, the survivor was involved in a suspicious car crash that killed two of her aunts and left her lawyer seriously injured. The family also alleged that the survivor’s father was assaulted in custody in April 2018 by men linked to Sengar. Although five men were later charged in the assault, the father himself was arrested on an arms charge and subsequently died in prison.
In March 2020, Sengar was convicted of culpable homicide in connection with the father’s death and sentenced to 10 years in prison, a sentence he continues to serve.
Survivor’s Lawyer: ‘Not a Victory, Just Time to Breathe’
Senior advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the survivor, welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention but cautioned against viewing it as a victory. He said the stay only provided temporary relief, describing it as “a little time to breathe” rather than a decisive legal win.
Pracha also noted that the survivor was not consulted by the CBI before the appeal was moved and stressed that the legal battle is far from over. He said the defence had been strongly contested even in the High Court, warning that without sustained opposition, bail could have been granted much earlier. Referring to earlier judicial observations, he raised concerns about alleged collusion and investigative lapses, while acknowledging that, for now, the survivor had been spared the immediate impact of the bail order.
Custodial Sentence and Present Status
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that Sengar remains in custody due to his separate conviction in the custodial death case. This aspect, the court indicated, formed part of the exceptional circumstances justifying the stay on the bail order at this stage.
For now, Sengar will remain in jail while the Supreme Court hears detailed arguments on whether the High Court’s interpretation of the POCSO Act was legally sustainable.
Broader Implications for Justice
The Supreme Court’s intervention goes beyond the immediate question of bail. It raises fundamental issues about how courts assess power, authority, and vulnerability in sexual offence cases involving children. The final outcome is likely to have significant implications for how aggravated offences are interpreted under child protection laws.
By staying the High Court’s order, the apex court has signalled that technical interpretations cannot be allowed to undermine the protective purpose of laws enacted for the most vulnerable. As proceedings continue, the Unnao case remains a critical test of survivor-centric justice and public confidence in India’s criminal justice system.
