In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India on Monday, December 29, 2025, put on hold an order from the Delhi High Court that had suspended the life sentence of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Kuldeep Singh Sengar. Sengar was convicted for the 2017 rape of a minor girl in Unnao, a case that had shocked the nation.
Core Legal Question: Is an MLA a Public Servant?
The apex court's intervention, led by a vacation Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, centers on a pivotal legal interpretation. The Bench identified a "substantial question of law" that needs resolution: whether an elected MLA falls under the definition of a "public servant" within the meaning of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
This question arose from the Delhi High Court's order dated December 23. The High Court, while suspending Sengar's sentence, had made a prima facie observation that an MLA is not explicitly listed as a public servant under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to which the POCSO Act refers for its definition. Consequently, the High Court suggested Sengar might not be covered under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, which deals with "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" committed by a public servant.
Supreme Court's Prima Facie View and CBI's Argument
The Supreme Court has initially rejected the High Court's narrow interpretation. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which appealed against the High Court's order, presented a compelling case. The investigative agency argued that legal definitions should not be read in isolation, especially given that the POCSO Act's definition clause starts with the phrase "unless the context otherwise requires."
The CBI contended that the very context of the POCSO Act is to shield children from individuals in positions of power, authority, or trust. Section 5 of the Act lists various authority figures like police, military personnel, and teachers. An MLA, wielding immense influence in their constituency, fits squarely within this category of dominance. The agency warned against a "pedantic interpretation" that would exclude elected representatives.
The Supreme Court Bench, also comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Joymalya Bagchi, pointed out a potential absurdity. It observed that accepting the High Court's view would mean a police constable—clearly a public servant under IPC—would face aggravated charges for the same crime, while an MLA with far greater power and influence would escape this stricter classification. The court found this discrepancy legally untenable at first glance.
Beyond POCSO: The IPC Life Sentence
The CBI highlighted another crucial layer to the sentencing. Even if Sengar's conviction under POCSO's Section 5(c) is debated, he was also convicted under Section 376(2) of the IPC for rape by a person in a position of trust or authority. The punishment for this offence, as it stood in 2017, also allowed for imprisonment for life.
The trial court had specifically sentenced Sengar to remain in prison for the "remainder of his natural life." The CBI argued that the High Court, in its focus on the technicalities of the POCSO Act's mandatory minimum sentence, overlooked the trial court's discretionary power to award a life term under the IPC provisions.
What Comes Next?
With its stay order, the Supreme Court has effectively cancelled the suspension of Sengar's life sentence for the time being. The top court has issued a formal notice to Kuldeep Sengar, granting him four weeks to file a counter-affidavit in response to the CBI's appeal. The legal battle will now continue, with the Supreme Court poised to deliver a definitive interpretation on the scope of "public servant" in child protection laws.
It is important to note that Sengar was not slated for immediate release, as he is concurrently serving a sentence in a related custodial death case. However, the Supreme Court's swift action underscores the legal and societal importance of this case, ensuring that the relief granted by the High Court is paused until the larger question is settled.
