The Supreme Court on Monday continued hearing submissions in the Unnao rape case while considering the issue of suspension of sentence and the interpretation of “public servant” under the POCSO Act. The accused stands convicted for the rape of a minor and is currently in custody, with his appeal against conviction pending.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, relied upon the trial court’s findings, noting that the victim was 15 years, 10 months, and 13 days old at the time of the offence in June 2017. He reiterated that the conviction was for rape and penetrative sexual assault under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(c) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and that even under the law applicable on the date of the offence, the minimum prescribed punishment was severe. The SG argued that the offence fell within the aggravated category, given the position of dominance exercised over the minor, and submitted that the concept of “public servant” under POCSO must be understood contextually rather than mechanically.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India observed that the argument on contextual interpretation carried weight and expressed concern over a narrow reading of “public servant.” The CJI remarked that it would be problematic if only a police constable were treated as a public servant under POCSO, while elected representatives such as MPs or MLAs were excluded. The Bench noted that the definition must be examined in light of the object and purpose of the statute.
Senior Advocate Hariharan, appearing in the matter, submitted that a media trial was underway, potentially impacting the fairness of proceedings. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave reiterated that the definition of “public servant” under POCSO should be traced to the IPC. Advocate Pracha informed the Court about the filing of a caveat in the matter.
Referring to page 211 of the High Court order, the Bench observed that substantial questions of law arose for consideration, particularly on the interpretation of statutory provisions and sentencing under POCSO.
In its order, the Supreme Court issued notice, returnable at a later date, directed the filing of a counter affidavit within four weeks, and stayed the operation of the High Court’s order. The Court clarified that the issues raised required detailed examination and would be considered at the next stage.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Nasadiya Singh, Adv., Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv., Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv., Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv., Ms. Anjale Patel In Person, Adv., Ms. Pooja Shilpkar In Person, Adv., Mr. Priyendu Raghav Mishra, Adv., Mr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, Adv., Mr. Pramod Yadav, Adv., Mr. Manish Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, Adv., Ms. Priya Maurya, Adv., Ms. Prakriti Pandey, Adv., Ms. Khushboo, Adv., Mr. Surender Kumar, Adv., Ms. Manisha Yadav, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv., Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Sanawar, Adv., Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv., Ms. Nuzhat Naseem, Adv., Mr. Sikander Raza, Adv., Mr. Kumail Abbas, Adv., Mr. Asad Mirza, Adv., Mr. Hasan, Adv., Ms. Heema, Adv. Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.P.M Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv., Mr. Ravi Sehgal Gaurav, Adv., Ms. Rekha Punya Angara, Adv. Mr. Arjan Singh Mandala, Adv., Mr. Amit Sinha, Adv., Mr. Rahul Poonja, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv., Mr. Hemant Shah, Adv., Ms. Kamna Singh, Adv., Mr. Umesh Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Pratyush Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Adv., Ms. Vaishali Singh, Adv.
