Unnao Rape Case SC Hearing Highlights: Don't try to browbeat system, Supreme Court slams social media trials

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its dissatisfaction over public browbeating of the judiciary and taking legal battles “to the streets” in the Unnao rape case over Delhi High Court's order suspending former BJP legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar's life sentence in the main case. It deprecated such media trials and asked people not to bring the matter to the streets and argue the case inside the court, not outside.

Read more here.

The mother of the 2017 Unnao rape case survivor has demanded a death sentence for convict Kuldeep Sengar. "We are very happy. We want to thank the Supreme Court. My daughter should get justice. I want the accused to be given a death sentence," she told reporters after the Supreme Court paused Sengar's bail order.

In the wake of the Supreme Court pausing the bail order of Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Sengar, the survivor’s lawyer cautioned that today’s ruling offered only a small relief and should not be seen as a complete victory.

"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. The CBI did not make us a party in this case. We cannot treat this judgement as a victory," advocate Mehmood Pracha told reporters.

Women's activist Yogita Bhayana has reacted positively to the Supreme Court's decision to pause the bail order of Unnao rape convict Kuldeep Sengar. Speaking to reporters, Bhayana said, "We were hoping for this order. We thank the Supreme Court and all the media for this. The Supreme Court has been sensitive towards this case. It will send a message to the country's daughters that if they face injustice, they will get justice."

When a senior advocate appearing for Sengar informed the Chief Justice of India that photographs of Delhi High Court judges were being circulated with captions urging people to “identify these judges,” the Supreme Court reacted sharply, strongly deprecating such media trials.

Reacting sharply, the CJI described the development as “very, very unfortunate,” and said the court was not sitting in “ivory towers” and was fully aware that attempts were being made to take political advantage of the situation.

The Chief Justice cautioned against browbeating the judicial system, asserting that such matters cannot be taken to the streets. “Arguments must be made inside the court, not outside,” the CJI said.

The Supreme Court observed that the survivor has the right to file a separate Special Leave Petition (SLP) and does not require specific liberty from the Court to do so. It directed the Legal Services Committee to provide free legal aid if needed.

Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the convict had been lawfully convicted by the judiciary. The survivor’s counsel raised concerns that the family was still under threat, to which the Chief Justice responded that they have the right to file an appeal and that remedies are available under the law. The survivor’s representative said the notice was short, and the Court assured that its doors are open 24/7 for legal recourse, cautioning against making irresponsible remarks. The lawyer, representing the convict, claimed the accused was being unfairly targeted, but the court emphasised that lawful procedures must be followed.

After the Supreme Court paused the Delhi High Court’s order that had suspended the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, Hemant Kumar Maurya, a lawyer for the survivor, said, “We thank the Supreme Court for today’s order. The survivor also wants to express her gratitude. The court has made it clear that the accused will not be released from jail under any circumstances. The High Court’s relief has been stayed, and the opposition has been given time to file a counter-affidavit. Until then, Sengar will remain in custody.”

On the Supreme Court's pause of the order of the Delhi High Court, which suspended the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, Congress leader Mumtaz Patel says, "We are hopeful now that justice will be given to the survivor. Kuldeep Sengar should be given a death sentence. A new law should come in which rapists should be given a death sentence."

In his order to pause Kuldeep Sengar's bail in the 2017 Unnao rape case, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, "We have heard Solicitor General Mehta for the CBI and senior counsel for the convict. We find that several substantial questions of law arise. A counter-affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. While we are mindful that the court ordinarily does not stay release orders once a convict or undertrial has been freed, in view of the peculiar facts, where the convict has already been convicted in a separate case, we stay the operation of the Delhi High Court order dated December 23. Accordingly, the respondent, Kuldeep Singh Sengar, shall not be released pursuant to that order.”

The Supreme Court has paused Kuldeep Sengar's bail in the 2017 Unnao rape case and said he will not be released from jail. The next hearing is scheduled to take place in January. 

The Supreme Court issued a notice to Kuldeep Sengar on the CBI’s plea, making it clear that it was not deciding the case at this stage. Counsel for the Unnao rape survivor sought permission to intervene and raised objections during the hearing. The court said the matter would be considered after receiving responses and, accordingly, issued notice to Sengar.

Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the Supreme Court was tentatively inclined to cancel Kuldeep Sengar's bail order. He noted that while the general principle is that a court does not ordinarily withdraw liberty once a person has been released, the present case is peculiar as the accused remains in jail in connection with another case.

The Solicitor General further told the Supreme Court that Kuldeep Sengar has also been found guilty in a separate case relating to the killing of the Unnao survivor’s father and remains in jail, and therefore has not been released so far. Urging the court to stay the impugned order, he said the authorities are answerable to the survivor, who was just 15 years and 10 months old at the time of the offence.

The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the finding in the case is of penetrative sexual assault. He argued that when the offence was committed in 2017, the law prescribed a punishment of seven years, and the subsequent amendment only enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment.

He stressed that mere enhancement of punishment does not violate Article 20 of the Constitution, as no new offence has been created retrospectively by Parliament.

In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the offence remains the same despite the amendment, but the legislature has made it clear that such crimes are viewed as extremely serious and against the ethos of society, warranting harsher punishment, which courts are expected to take into account.

Chief Justice Surya Kant asked whether the status of a public servant becomes irrelevant when the victim is a minor. Responding, the Solicitor General said yes, arguing that penetrative sexual assault is an independent offence under the law, with punishment provided separately. He explained that the law treats certain situations as aggravated offences, particularly when the accused holds a position of dominance over the victim.

The Solicitor General gave examples, saying that if a police constable or an army officer commits such an act while on duty, it would amount to aggravated sexual assault. He clarified that while the term “public servant” is not specifically defined in this section, its meaning is borrowed from the IPC and must be understood in context.

Summing up the argument, the Chief Justice observed that the CBI’s position is that anyone exercising a dominant position at the time—such as an MLA approached for help—would fall under aggravated sexual assault if such an act is committed.

Hearing in the 2017 Unnao rape case commenced before the Supreme Court on Monday, with CBI counsel and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta describing it as a “very horrific case.” Taking the court through the trial court’s order of conviction, Mehta said the prosecution had proved accused Kuldeep Sengar’s guilt under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, with the trial court recording a clear finding that the survivor was a minor, aged 15 years and 10 months. He pointed out that the appeal against the conviction is still pending.

Mehta further submitted that the trial court had undisputedly convicted Sengar under Section 376 at the time of sentencing. He explained that Section 376(1) prescribes a minimum punishment of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment, while Section 376(2) carries a minimum sentence of 20 years extending up to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life, adding that since the survivor was below 16 years of age, the case attracted aggravated punishment.

With the Supreme Court set to hear the CBI’s plea on Kuldeep Singh Sengar, security has been significantly tightened outside the court. Vehicles are not allowed near the entry gates, and roads have been blocked with barricades. The heightened security comes after a small group of protesters staged a demonstration outside the Supreme Court.

(Piyush Mishra inputs)

Congress workers have staged a protest outside the Supreme Court ahead of a hearing of a CBI plea opposing the suspension of accused Kuldeep Sengar's life sentence in the 2017 Unnao rape case.

In the Unnao rape case, convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s lawyer, Shashi Tripathi, said, “We should have faith in the legal system. We have a good legal system.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear today a plea filed by the CBI challenging the Delhi High Court’s order that suspended the life sentence of the expelled BJP MLA.