The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Unnao rape survivor to be made a party in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) petition challenging the suspension of life imprisonment of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The court said victims have a right to participate in proceedings that directly affect their interests and granted the survivor two weeks to file her affidavit opposing the suspension of Sengar’s sentence.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi permitted the survivor to intervene in the case, observing that victims must be given an opportunity to present their views in judicial proceedings that impact them.
“We are of the view that the victim has the right to be heard,” the Chief Justice said while allowing her to be impleaded as a party in the case.
The bench granted the survivor two weeks to file an affidavit in response to the suspension of Sengar’s life sentence.
However, the court rejected a separate intervention plea filed by a relative of the survivor who claimed that his life and liberty were under threat. The bench said he could pursue an independent legal remedy and approach the High Court for protection instead of intervening in the CBI’s petition. The application was accordingly disposed of.
The Supreme Court did not proceed with the hearing of the CBI’s challenge to the suspension of Sengar’s sentence as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the probe agency, was unavailable on Monday.
During the brief proceedings, senior advocate N. Hariharan, representing Sengar, requested the court to list the matter at the earliest. He argued that the liberty granted to his client by the Delhi High Court had been curtailed after the Supreme Court stayed the order suspending his sentence.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the matter would be scheduled for hearing soon.
On December 29, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s December 23 order that had suspended Sengar’s life sentence in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The apex court directed that Sengar should not be released from custody while the issue remains under consideration.
While issuing notice on the CBI’s plea, the court had observed that “substantial questions of law” had arisen that required detailed examination.
The bench had acknowledged that ordinarily, an order granting bail or suspending a sentence should not be stayed without hearing the concerned person. However, it noted that Sengar was already convicted in another case and remained in custody.
“In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order,” the Supreme Court had said.
The Delhi High Court had suspended Sengar’s life sentence pending the hearing of his appeal, noting that he had already spent seven years and five months in prison.
In its order, the High Court observed that Sengar had been convicted under Section 5(C) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant. However, the court held that an elected representative does not fall within the definition of a “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore the provision may not apply in the same manner.
The order sparked criticism and protests by the survivor, her family members and activists.
Sengar was convicted by a trial court in December 2019 in the Unnao rape case. The rape trial and related cases had been transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019.
Although the High Court suspended his sentence in the rape case, Sengar continues to remain in jail as he is also serving a 10-year sentence in the custodial death case of the survivor’s father. His appeal in that case is pending, where he has also sought suspension of sentence.
In its petition before the Supreme Court, the CBI argued that the High Court erred in holding that Sengar, who was an MLA at the time of the offence, could not be treated as a public servant under the relevant legal provisions.
The agency referred to an earlier Supreme Court ruling in the L.K. Advani case, which held that persons holding public office, including MPs and MLAs, can be considered “public servants.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had earlier urged the court to stay the High Court’s order, describing the case as a “horrific rape” of a minor.
The Supreme Court is expected to take up the matter for further hearing on a later date.
