New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Delhi High Court order that had suspended the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and ruled that he will not be released from custody for now. The top court said the case raises serious legal questions that need careful examination and issued notice to Sengar, asking him to respond within four weeks to a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
A three-judge vacation bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices J K Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, passed the interim order while hearing the CBI’s challenge to the high court decision dated December 23. That order had suspended Sengar’s life sentence during the pendency of his appeal against conviction.
The Supreme Court said it was aware that, as a general rule, bail or suspension of sentence granted by a trial court or high court is not stayed without first hearing the accused. However, it added that the present case stood on a different footing. The bench noted that Sengar is also convicted in another case and continues to remain in jail in that matter.
“In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025. Consequently, the respondent shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order,” the bench said. It added that several substantial questions of law arise from the high court ruling, and these require detailed consideration.
The Delhi High Court had suspended Sengar’s life sentence in the rape case till the disposal of his appeal, observing that he had already spent seven years and five months in prison. Sengar was convicted by a Delhi trial court in December 2019 for raping a minor girl in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh.
Despite the high court order, Sengar was not released as he is also serving a 10-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, which continues to keep him behind bars.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to immediately stay the high court order. He described the offence as a “horrific rape” of a minor and said the court must remain conscious of its responsibility towards the victim.
“This is an occasion where I would really urge your lordships’ conscience to stay this order. We are answerable to the child who was 15 years and 10 months old,” Mehta told the bench. He also highlighted that Sengar was a powerful MLA in the area at the time the offence was committed.
A key issue raised by the CBI relates to the interpretation of the term “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Delhi High Court had held that while Sengar was convicted under provisions dealing with aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant, an elected representative does not fall within the definition of a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Chief Justice questioned whether such an interpretation would mean that the concept of a public servant becomes irrelevant when the victim is a minor. Mehta replied that the POCSO Act does not define “public servant” on its own, but referred to Section 42A of the law. That provision states that the POCSO Act is in addition to other laws and will prevail in case of inconsistency.
The CBI also pointed out earlier Supreme Court rulings, including in the L K Advani case, where the court held that people holding public office, such as MPs and MLAs, are public servants. The agency argued that the high court was wrong in holding that Sengar, who was an MLA when the crime took place, could not be treated as a public servant for the purpose of aggravated offences under POCSO. Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Sengar, opposed the CBI’s plea for a stay. He argued that the high court order was well-reasoned and deserved consideration. Other lawyers for Sengar also made submissions in support of the high court’s findings. The Supreme Court made it clear that it was not expressing any final opinion at this stage. “We are only saying that the matter requires consideration,” the bench said. It added that the arguments put forward by Sengar’s lawyers also have weight and need to be examined in detail.
At the same time, the bench expressed concern about the wider implications of the interpretation adopted by the high court. It observed that if the reasoning were accepted, lower-level officials like constables or patwaris would qualify as public servants, but elected representatives such as MPs or MLAs might not. The court said this raised serious legal concerns. The hearing also addressed the public’s reaction to the high court order. Hariharan told the bench that allegations were being made against the high court judges who passed the December 23 order. He said videos and photographs of the judges were being circulated and urged people to refrain from making statements or accusations against judges for their decisions.
“They are doing that on national television,” Hariharan said, adding that such actions were a cause of concern.
Responding to these submissions, the bench said it understood the situation. “We are not sitting in ivory towers. We understand that people are trying to take political advantage and there are people who are trying to take advantage,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said.
The bench observed that those making allegations were forgetting that Sengar was convicted by the judiciary itself. “Very frankly, these judges are one of the finest we have,” the court said, while noting that the high court order involved detailed analysis. It added that judges, like all institutions, are capable of error.
Later, when asked about the allegations against the high court judges, Solicitor General Mehta strongly defended them. He said both judges are “brilliant with unimpeachable integrity” and that any attempt to malign them should be condemned. He added that efforts to intimidate or browbeat honest judges must not be encouraged.
The Supreme Court also noted that the victim has a statutory right to file a separate special leave petition challenging the high court order, independent of the CBI’s plea.
Outside the courtroom, the apex court’s decision was welcomed by the survivor and her family. Speaking to reporters from Delhi, the survivor said she was very happy with the Supreme Court’s order and felt she had received justice. “I have been raising my voice for justice from the very beginning. I have faith in all courts, but the Supreme Court has given me justice and will continue to do so,” she said. She added that she and her family still receive threats.
The survivor also said she would continue to fight until she gets complete justice. “I will not rest until he is hanged. I will keep fighting. Only then will my family and I get justice,” she said.
Family members expressed relief over the Supreme Court’s intervention and said their faith in the justice system had been restored. The survivor’s sister said she was confident the court would ensure that Sengar is not released. She described the impact of the crime on the family and said they would continue to pursue the case.
The survivor’s mother also thanked the Supreme Court and said those responsible for her husband’s death should receive the harshest punishment. Activist Yogita Bhayana said the Supreme Court order has wider meaning beyond the individual case. She said it was not a fight of one victim alone, but of all girls. She pointed out that while courts usually do not stay suspension of sentence orders, the apex court itself noted that this case stands on a different footing. The Unnao rape case has been under national attention for several years. In August 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the trial of the rape case and other connected cases from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, citing concerns related to fairness and safety.
Sengar was convicted in December 2019 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape. He was also convicted and sentenced to 10 years in the custodial death case of the survivor’s father, who died after being arrested in a weapons case.
Sengar has appealed against his convictions. His appeal in the custodial death case is also pending, and he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial period in jail. The Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend his life sentence in the rape case triggered protests by the survivor, her family and activists. It also drew criticism from sections of the public, following which the CBI approached the Supreme Court.
In its plea, the CBI argued that the high court made an error in holding that an MLA could not be treated as a public servant for the purpose of aggravated offences under the POCSO Act. The agency said such an interpretation could weaken the protection available to minor victims.
The case will now be heard again after Sengar files his response to the notice issued by the apex court. Until then, the stay on the high court order will continue, and the life sentence imposed by the trial court will remain in force.