New Delhi – The Central Bureau of Investigation has taken decisive legal action as CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension before the Supreme Court. The agency filed a Special Leave Petition on Friday against the Delhi High Court’s controversial decision to suspend the life imprisonment sentence of expelled Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
Special Leave Petition Filed
The move where CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension came through an official filing titled “CBI Vs Kuldeep Singh Senger” before the Supreme Court. An official spokesperson of the agency confirmed the filing, emphasizing the gravity of the case and the importance of ensuring justice for the victim.
“Special leave petition filed on Friday before the Supreme Court against the orders of Delhi high court which suspended the sentence and granted bail to accused K S Senger in Unnao rape case,” the CBI spokesperson stated, outlining the agency’s formal challenge to the high court’s decision.
This legal action where CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension represents the agency’s commitment to pursuing justice in one of India’s most prominent sexual assault cases involving a political figure.
Background of Original Conviction
The context in which CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension involves Sengar’s December 2019 conviction to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25 lakh. This conviction came after a thorough investigation and trial that examined evidence of sexual assault against a minor victim.
Following his conviction, Sengar filed an appeal against the conviction before the Delhi High Court in January 2020. Subsequently, he filed a petition for suspension of sentence in March 2022, which became the subject of prolonged legal proceedings.
The CBI spokesperson recalled that this suspension petition was “vehemently opposed by CBI and the victim through their counsels,” indicating the agency’s consistent position against any leniency in the case. The fact that CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension demonstrates continuity in this opposition.
Delhi High Court’s Controversial Decision
The December 23 order that prompted CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension came from a bench comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar. The high court noted that Sengar had already undergone the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act before its 2019 amendment.
“The appellant was sentenced for the remainder of his life, and as on November 30, 2025, he has spent about 7 years and 5 months under incarceration, which is more than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 4 of the Pocso Act, as it existed at the time when the offence was committed,” the high court observed.
Importantly, Sengar remains incarcerated as he is serving a separate 10-year imprisonment sentence in another CBI case for murder, a fact that adds complexity to the situation where CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension.
CBI’s Legal Arguments
According to an officer familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity, the grounds on which CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension center on the strength of evidence and testimony. The agency contends that the high court erred in suspending the sentence, as the rape survivor’s testimony and collected evidence conclusively established Sengar’s role.
Also Read: Atal Canteens Delhi Launch: Revolutionary Rs. 5 Meals for Urban Poor
The trial court judge’s December 2019 conviction order had specifically noted that “the evidence given by the victim that she was assaulted is unblemished, truthful and of sterling quality to arrive at the conclusion that she was sexually assaulted by accused Kuldeep Singh Senger,” a second officer confirmed.
This assessment of evidence quality forms a crucial part of why CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension, arguing that such compelling testimony warrants the original life sentence.
Technical Legal Question at Heart
The reason CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension involves a complex statutory interpretation issue: whether a legislator qualifies as a “public servant” under the POCSO Act. The Delhi High Court’s prima facie finding suggested that Sengar, despite being an elected MLA at the time of the offence, does not fall within the “public servant” category under Section 5(c) of POCSO or Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
This classification carries enormous legal consequences. A public servant receives a higher sentence than someone who is not a public servant. If the accused is not deemed a “public servant,” the offence falls under Section 4 of POCSO, prescribing a minimum of 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment (10 years under the 2019 amendment), extendable to life.
In contrast, if classified as a public servant, the minimum sentence ranges from 20 years to life imprisonment under Section 5. The distinction explains why CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension so vigorously—the classification fundamentally alters the severity of punishment.
Implications for Justice System
The case where CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension raises broader questions about accountability for elected officials accused of serious crimes. The determination of whether legislators constitute “public servants” under sexual assault laws has far-reaching implications for similar future cases.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on this matter where CBI challenges Sengar sentence suspension will likely establish important precedent regarding statutory interpretation of public servant definitions and appropriate sentencing for elected officials convicted of sexual offences against minors.
As the legal battle continues, the victim and advocacy groups await the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping for justice and deterrence against powerful individuals who abuse their positions.
