The Supreme Court on Monday intervened decisively to stop the release of former Uttar Pradesh legislator 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 apex court’s move has reopened a critical legal question: whether an elected representative can be treated as a “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The intervention came after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the High Court’s reasoning, describing it as legally flawed and inconsistent with settled Supreme Court precedent. At the centre of the CBI’s argument lies a landmark 1997 Supreme Court judgment in the LK Advani vs CBI case, which clarified the legal status of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies under anti-corruption law.
By invoking that ruling, the CBI has urged the Supreme Court to adopt a broader and purposive interpretation of the POCSO Act, particularly in cases involving abuse of power by elected representatives.
Supreme Court Steps In
A vacation bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, stayed the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Sengar. The court also issued notice to the former BJP MLA and gave him four weeks to file his response to the CBI’s petition.
The stay effectively blocks Sengar’s release from prison, at least until the Supreme Court examines the legal issues raised by the investigating agency. The bench signalled that it would scrutinise whether the High Court had erred in suspending a life sentence in a case involving the rape of a minor.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 2017, when a teenage girl from Unnao district accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar, then a sitting MLA from Bangarmau, of raping her. The case triggered national outrage after the survivor and her family alleged sustained intimidation and harassment by Sengar and his associates.
The controversy deepened when the survivor’s father died in police custody under suspicious circumstances. Sengar was later convicted in a separate case related to the custodial death.
After a trial monitored by the Supreme Court, a special CBI court in 2019 convicted Sengar of rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction marked a rare instance of a powerful legislator being held accountable in a high-profile sexual assault case.
Delhi High Court’s Bail Order
Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence and granted him bail during the pendency of his appeal against conviction. A bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan ruled that aggravated offence provisions under the POCSO Act did not apply to Sengar.
The High Court reasoned that Sengar could not be treated as a “public servant” under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act because the statute does not explicitly include MLAs within its definition. Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that the stricter standards applicable to public servants under POCSO could not be invoked against him.
This reasoning became the focal point of the CBI’s challenge before the Supreme Court.
CBI’s Reliance on the LK Advani Judgment
In its petition, the CBI relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1997 judgment in the LK Advani vs CBI case. That ruling arose from corruption allegations involving senior political leaders and examined whether MPs and MLAs could be treated as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Supreme Court had answered that question unequivocally, holding that elected representatives do fall within the definition of public servants for the purposes of anti-corruption law. The judgment emphasised that legislators exercise public power and authority, making them accountable under statutes designed to curb abuse of office.
The CBI now argues that the same principle should apply to the POCSO Act, especially when an elected representative allegedly exploits his position to commit sexual offences against a child.
Why the Legal Question Matters
According to the CBI, the High Court adopted an overly narrow and technical interpretation of the POCSO Act that defeats the statute’s protective purpose. The agency contended that POCSO is a special welfare law enacted to provide enhanced safeguards to children and to recognise abuse of authority as an aggravating factor.
Excluding MLAs from the definition of public servants under POCSO, the CBI warned, would weaken the law and create a dangerous loophole for powerful offenders.
The agency also stressed that suspension of a life sentence in cases involving rape of a minor should remain an exception, not the norm. It argued that prolonged incarceration alone cannot justify bail in such serious offences, particularly when the convicted individual wields significant influence.
What Lies Ahead
With the Supreme Court staying the High Court’s order, the focus now shifts to how the apex court interprets the scope of the term “public servant” under the POCSO Act. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the Unnao case but also for future prosecutions involving elected representatives accused of crimes against children.
The case also underscores a broader concern about public confidence in the criminal justice system. The CBI has argued that releasing a powerful convict on bail in such circumstances risks undermining faith in the rule of law and sending a troubling signal in cases of sexual violence.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear detailed arguments, the proceedings are expected to shape how courts balance statutory interpretation, legislative intent, and accountability of those holding public office.
