CJI Surya Kant slammed online criticism against Delhi High Court judges for granting bail to Kuldeep Singh Sengar, warning against attempts to “browbeat” the system and reminding that the judiciary had initially convicted Sengar, urging arguments to remain within the courtroom.
In a significant development for the survivor of the Unnao rape case, the Supreme Court on Monday put a hold on the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, which had previously granted him bail.
During the proceedings, the intense social media backlash against the Delhi High Court judges Justice Subramanian Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan who approved Sengar’s bail was highlighted and drew sharp criticism from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
At the conclusion of the hearing, senior advocates Siddharth Dave and N. Hariharan, representing Sengar, noted the allegations being made against the high court judges for granting bail despite objections from the CBI.
Hariharan termed the situation as potentially contemptuous, while Dave pointed out that images of both judges were circulating online, prompting calls for people to identify these judges.
CJI Surya Kant expressed grave concern over this matter, labeling it very unfortunate and accusing individuals of attempting to gain “political advantage” from the situation.
He remarked,
“It is very unfortunate. We are not sitting in ivory towers. People try to take political advantage, don’t try to browbeat the system.”
Responding to public criticism directed at Delhi High Court judges over their decision to grant bail to Unnao rape accused Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reminded survivor’s counsel to acknowledge that,
“Don’t Forget It was the judiciary which had initially passed the conviction order against Sengar.”
The court emphasized,
“You cannot bring all this to the streets. Argue inside the court, not outside.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Central Bureau of Investigation during the hearing, affirmed the integrity and brilliance of both judges, condemning any efforts to tarnish their reputations. According to report, he stated that he fully trusts both judges.
The survivor of the Unnao rape case expressed her relief with the Supreme Court’s decision, conveying satisfaction with the judiciary’s response.
She told news agency,
“I am very happy with this decision. I have got justice from the Supreme Court. I have been raising my voice for justice from the very beginning,”
She added,
“I do not make any allegations against any court. I have faith in all courts, but the Supreme Court has given me justice and will continue to do so,”
Earlier, yesterday, The apex Court took a strong view while examining the challenge to the Delhi High Court’s order suspending the life sentence of the convict in the Unnao rape case.
After hearing arguments, the Supreme Court issued notice and CJI Surya Kant announced,
“Notice issued. We have heard SG Mehta for the CBI and senior counsel for the convict. Several substantial questions of law arise in this case. The counter-affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. While the Court generally does not stay release orders without hearing the person concerned, given the peculiar facts that the convict is already serving a sentence for a separate offence, we stay the operation of the Delhi High Court order dated December 23, 2025, and the respondent shall not be released pursuant to that order.”
This decision has brought temporary relief to the side of the survivor, even as the legal fight continues.
After the Supreme Court’s order, Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who represents the Unnao rape case survivor, shared a strong reaction.
He said,
“I can assure the victims that we have got a small relief. This should not be called victory, but we have got a little time to breathe. CBI took a stand on a very limited point and did not raise our strongest grounds of argument. CBI did not consult us at all. There is so much evidence in favour of the victim that any court would give a verdict in her support… The court did not hear us on the main merits. CBI has just discussed the iceberg of the case; we have the entire matter with us… CBI did not make us a party in this case. We cannot treat this judgement as a victory for the victim…”
Earlier, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appealed to the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a former Uttar Pradesh BJP MLA, in the 2017 Unnao rape case involving a minor girl.
The CBI contests the High Court’s ruling, which suspended Sengar’s sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure while his criminal appeal is still pending.
In December 2019, Sengar was convicted by a trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
The trial court noted that there were no mitigating factors and emphasized that, as a public servant in a democratic society, Sengar betrayed the trust of the people.
While his appeal is still ongoing, Sengar sought suspension of his sentence and bail, which the High Court granted on December 23. The suspension was based on the Court’s preliminary finding that the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act was not applicable in his case.
Earlier, on December 23, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s sentence in relation to the 2017 case. The survivor, a minor, was reportedly kidnapped and raped by Sengar between June 11 and June 20, 2017, after which she was sold for Rs.60,000 before being recovered at the Maakhi police station.
According to Section 5 of the POCSO Act, the definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault includes offenses committed by public servants, police officers, or others in trusted positions.
The trial court labelled Sengar as a public servant under this definition.
However, the High Court’s Division Bench, consisting of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar, concluded that Sengar did not qualify as a public servant under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court ruled that Sengar did not fit within the provisions of Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, which addresses offenses committed by individuals “in a position of trust or authority.”
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the CBI asserts that the High Court made a legal error by ruling that aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act was not established in Sengar’s case.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Unnao Rape
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
