The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Delhi High Court’s order suspending Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s sentence in the Unnao rape case, stating that substantial questions of law have arisen. The Court was careful to maintain institutional balance.
The Chief Justice acknowledged that the HC judges who passed the order are among the finest, while observing that courts, like all institutions, are fallible. Yet the concern during the hearing was unmistakable: reading the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in a way that treats a ‘constable or patwari’ as a ‘public servant’, while excluding an ‘MP or MLA’ risks an outcome that neither reflects the purpose of the law nor accords with social reality.
The difficulty stemmed from the HC’s narrow reading of ‘public servant’ under POCSO Act, relying on the Indian Penal Code definition and rejecting the trial court’s use of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which includes legislators. Even if the aggravated offence under Section 5(c) of POCSO was inapplicable, the finding of penetrative sexual assault of a minor remained.
The appellate court could have examined whether other provisions, including Section 376(2)(b) of the IPC, which deals with abuse of a dominant position, independently warranted a life sentence. The Solicitor General flagged this gap, noting that Section 42A of the POCSO Act requires punishment under the law prescribing the harsher sentence where multiple statutes apply. More broadly, the submissions underlined that sexual crimes by those wielding authority are treated as aggravated because of power imbalance, not formal labels.
Indian courts have consistently held that suspension of a life sentence should be exceptional, since conviction ends the presumption of innocence and such relief is justified only by a clear and serious error.
The human context cannot be ignored. The survivor’s family faced sustained threats, culminating in the custodial death of her father, for which Sengar was separately convicted. Rape is an abhorrent crime that demands the severest response of the law. Clarity in charging and sentencing, especially where dominance and coercion are evident, is essential.
What is troubling in the High Court order is the lack of a fuller exploration of legal alternatives once a technical doubt was identified. If a defect was perceived, all possible routes to preserve accountability should have been examined. By staying the order, the Supreme Court has signalled that technical readings cannot eclipse justice, survivors or public faith.
