The Supreme Court on Monday stepped in to halt the release of former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, staying a Delhi High Court order that had suspended his life sentence and granted him bail in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The top court's move has raised a question whether an elected legislator can be treated as a "public servant" under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The intervention by the Supreme Court follows an appeal by the CBI which has described the High Court's reasoning as legally flawed. Central to the CBI's challenge is its reliance on a 1997 judgment of the Supreme Court in an 'LK Advani vs CBI' case that dealt with corruption allegations against senior political figures and clarified the legal status of MPs and MLAs under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The CBI's Objection
Challenging the High Court's order, the CBI told the Supreme Court that the reasoning adopted was legally untenable.
In its petition, the CBI cited the Supreme Court's 1997 judgment in the 'LK Advani vs CBI' case that arose out of corruption allegations involving prominent political figures, including Advani. The CBI had filed cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that illegal funds had been paid to politicians in exchange for government favours.
A central legal issue in that case was whether elected representatives -- MPs and MLAs -- could be treated as "public servants" for the purposes of anti-corruption law. The Supreme Court answered that question in the affirmative, holding that elected public representatives fall squarely within the category of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The CBI now argues that if legislators can be treated as public servants for offences such as corruption, the same principle must apply with equal or greater force in cases involving sexual offences against children.
According to the agency, the High Court interpreted the POCSO Act too narrowly and failed to take into account binding Supreme Court precedent. It warned that excluding MLAs from the definition of public servants under POCSO would undermine the very purpose of the law.
The Supreme Court's Order
A vacation bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, stayed the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to Sengar. The court issued notice to the former BJP MLA and granted him four weeks to respond to the CBI's petition.
The case dates back to 2017, when a teenager from Unnao district accused Kuldeep Sengar, then the sitting MLA from the Bangarmau constituency, of raping her. It also involved the death of the survivor's father in custody, for which Sengar was separately convicted.
The trial court eventually sentenced Sengar to life imprisonment for the rape.
Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar's life sentence and granted him bail pending the hearing of his appeal against the trial court verdict. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan reasoned that Sengar's status as an MLA did not automatically bring him within the definition of a "public servant" under the POCSO Act.
The High Court held that the definition of "public servant" under POCSO does not expressly include MLAs. On that basis, it concluded that Sengar could not be subjected to what it described as the stricter standards applicable under POCSO for offences committed by public servants or persons in positions of trust.
