New Delhi— The Central Bureau of Investigation has challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of former Bharatiya Janata Party legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, arguing that the court erred in narrowly interpreting the term “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
In its appeal before the Supreme Court, the CBI urged the top court to adopt a “purposive” and “harmonious” interpretation of the law, contending that elected representatives such as Members of Legislative Assembly fall within the category of public servants for the purposes of enhanced punishment under POCSO.
On December 23, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence, holding that an MLA does not qualify as a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, which is relied upon by the POCSO Act for defining the term. The court said earlier Supreme Court rulings treating MPs and MLAs as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be automatically extended to offences under POCSO.
The CBI, in its appeal filed on Friday, pointed out that Sengar was convicted under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor, an offence that attracts enhanced punishment when committed by a public servant. It argued that the high court failed to appreciate that an MLA, by virtue of holding a constitutional office, exercises authority and public trust over the electorate.
The agency said the high court’s interpretation defeated the legislative intent behind laws aimed at imposing higher accountability on persons occupying positions of power. It stressed that provisions under the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the POCSO Act share a common objective of ensuring stricter liability for those in positions of trust or authority who abuse their power.
According to the CBI, a meaningful reading of Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act makes it clear that the law seeks to punish sexual exploitation of children by public servants due to the misuse of their position, whether political or otherwise. The agency underscored that such offences are graver than corruption cases, as they involve direct physical, psychological and moral harm to children.
The CBI also argued that suspension of sentence in cases involving life imprisonment can be granted only when the conviction appears prima facie unsustainable and there is a strong likelihood of success in appeal. Long incarceration or delay in hearing, it said, cannot by itself justify suspension in heinous crimes, where courts must balance individual liberty with societal interest.
A trial court had convicted Sengar in December 2019 and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. He has spent over seven years and five months in custody. While suspending the sentence, the high court held that the aggravated offence under Section 5(c) was not made out and took into account the period already spent in jail.
The CBI and the survivor have maintained that Sengar’s plea for suspension should have been considered only after hearing the main appeal. They have also warned that his release could pose a serious threat to the survivor and her family. Citing these concerns, the agency has sought a stay on the high court’s order suspending Sengar’s sentence.
Sengar’s appeal against his conviction and sentence remains pending before the Delhi High Court.
