The Supreme Court allowed the Unnao rape survivor to become a party in the CBI’s plea challenging the suspension of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s life imprisonment. The court said victims must be heard in proceedings that directly affect their rights.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday allowed the survivor of the 2017 Unnao rape case to become a party in the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the suspension of life imprisonment granted to former Kuldeep Singh Sengar.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the survivor has the right to participate in proceedings that directly affect her interests. The court allowed her request to be formally included in the matter and granted her two weeks to file an affidavit opposing the suspension of the life sentence awarded to Sengar.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Refuses to Withdraw CRPF Security Cover for Unnao Rape Survivor
While allowing the plea, the bench emphasized the importance of hearing the victim in such cases. The Chief Justice stated, “We are of the view that the victim has the right to be heard,” and permitted the survivor to place her objections before the court. The observation aligns with the Supreme Court’s earlier stance recognising the rights of victims to participate in criminal proceedings, including the principles highlighted in cases arising from the Lakhimpur Kheri violence.
However, the court refused to entertain an intervention application filed by one of the survivor’s relatives who claimed that his life and liberty were under threat. The bench clarified that such concerns should be addressed through appropriate legal remedies rather than intervention in the present proceedings. The Chief Justice advised the applicant that he could seek protection independently before the appropriate forum, including the high court.
The court therefore disposed of the relative’s intervention application while making it clear that his concerns could be pursued through a separate legal process.
The matter regarding the CBI’s challenge to the suspension of Sengar’s sentence could not be heard on Monday because Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, was unavailable.
During the brief hearing, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing Sengar, urged the court to schedule the hearing at the earliest. He argued that the liberty granted to his client by the Delhi High Court had effectively been curtailed after the Supreme Court intervened in the matter.
Responding to this request, the Chief Justice informed the parties that the court would soon fix a date for the next hearing.
Earlier, on December 29 last year, the Supreme Court had stayed the order of the Delhi High Court which had suspended Sengar’s life sentence in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The apex court had directed that Sengar should remain in custody until further orders.
While issuing notice in the case, the bench had observed that significant legal questions had arisen which required detailed examination by the court. It also sought Sengar’s response to the CBI’s petition within four weeks.
The Supreme Court had also noted that generally it does not stay bail or suspension orders granted by a trial court or a high court without hearing the concerned person. However, considering the special circumstances of the case, the bench decided to intervene.
The court had also pointed out that Sengar had been convicted in another case related to the custodial death of the survivor’s father and remained in custody in connection with that conviction.
Explaining its decision to stay the High Court order, the bench had stated, “In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order.”
The Supreme Court had also recorded that several important legal issues had emerged which required its consideration in the matter.
During the earlier hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had strongly opposed the suspension of Sengar’s sentence and urged the court to stay the High Court order, describing the incident as a “horrific rape” of a minor child.
The Delhi High Court, in its order dated December 23, had suspended the life sentence of Sengar while his appeal against conviction remains pending. The High Court had reasoned that Sengar was convicted under Section 5(C) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant. However, the court observed that an elected representative like an MLA does not fall within the definition of a “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
During the High Court proceedings, counsel appearing for Sengar had argued that the judiciary should not be influenced by external pressure. The counsel had stated, “there are always some elements that attempt to browbeat honest judges and such devious forces must not be encouraged.”
The High Court had also taken into account the period already spent in jail by Sengar and noted that he had served seven years and five months in prison. On this basis, the court suspended his life sentence until the final decision on his appeal.
The High Court’s decision triggered widespread criticism from several quarters. The survivor, her family members and activists had staged protests against the order and demanded that the suspension of the sentence be reconsidered.
Sengar had originally challenged the December 2019 trial court judgment that convicted him in the Unnao rape case. Despite the suspension of sentence in that matter, he continued to remain in prison because he was also serving a ten-year sentence in a separate case relating to the custodial death of the survivor’s father. He has not been granted bail in that case.
The Supreme Court had earlier transferred the trial in the rape case and related matters from a court in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi on August 1, 2019, to ensure a fair and independent trial.
Sengar’s appeal against his conviction in the custodial death case is also pending before the court, where he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial period in prison.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Refuses to Withdraw CRPF Security Cover for Unnao Rape Survivor
In its petition before the Supreme Court, the CBI has argued that the Delhi High Court committed a legal error in holding that Sengar was not a “public servant.” The agency referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case involving veteran leader L. K. Advani, in which the court had clarified that individuals holding public office, including Members of Parliament or Members of Legislative Assemblies, can be treated as ‘public servants’.
The CBI has therefore contended that Sengar, who was an MLA at the time of the offence, should fall within the category of a public servant under the law and could rightly be prosecuted under the aggravated offence provisions of the POCSO Act. It has argued that the High Court’s interpretation led to an incorrect suspension of the life sentence awarded in the case.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Unnao Rape
