The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Delhi High Court order suspending the sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case and directed the High Court to hear the suspension of sentence plea afresh without being influenced by any earlier observations.

The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that several important issues raised by both sides had not been fully examined by the High Court while deciding the suspension application. During the hearing, the Court noted that apart from the controversy regarding the survivor’s age and applicability of provisions under the POCSO Act, the conviction under Section 376 IPC carrying imprisonment for the remainder of natural life was also a crucial aspect requiring consideration.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Sengar, argued that the survivor was not a minor at the time of the incident and relied on medical opinions, including findings of an AIIMS board, to contend that she was above 18 years of age. He further argued that an MLA may not fall within the definition of “public servant” for the purposes of aggravated offences under the POCSO Act.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the trial court had recorded findings regarding Sengar occupying a “dominant position.”

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that we do not endorse the hyper-technical conclusion of the high court  that an MLA is not a public servant under POCSO

At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that it was consciously refraining from expressing any opinion on merits, observing that any such finding at the stage of suspension of sentence could prejudice either side in the pending criminal appeal.

The Court ultimately set aside the Delhi High Court order and directed that the suspension application be reconsidered afresh on all grounds. It clarified that neither the findings in the earlier High Court order nor any observations made by the Supreme Court would influence the fresh adjudication. The Court also requested the High Court to make an endeavour to decide the main criminal appeal expeditiously, preferably before the summer vacation, and stated that if early disposal was not possible, the High Court could independently reconsider the prayer for suspension of sentence.