The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s life sentence in the 2017 Unnao rape case. The agency contends that the high court adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the term “public servant”, undermining the legislative intent behind child protection laws, and argued that a sitting MLA, by virtue of holding a constitutional office, is vested with public trust and authority over the electorate.

The appeal, filed on Friday, requests the Supreme Court to adopt a “purposive” and “harmonious” interpretation of statutory provisions, asserting that persons holding public office must be held to heightened accountability, particularly in cases involving sexual exploitation of minors. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is scheduled to hear the CBI’s plea on Monday.

---

High Court’s Reasoning

On December 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence, ruling that he did not qualify as a “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the purposes of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Sengar was convicted by a trial court in December 2019 under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor and sentenced to life imprisonment. By the time of the high court’s decision, Sengar had already served over seven years and five months in jail.

The high court concluded that the aggravated offence under Section 5(c) was not made out, and that only an offence under Section 3 of POCSO applied. It further held that precedents classifying MPs and MLAs as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not automatically extend to POCSO offences. The court also reasoned that, in the absence of foundational findings by the trial court regarding authority or trust under Section 5(p) of POCSO—which covers persons in positions of trust—the MLA could not be included under the ambit of a “person in authority.”

Additionally, the high court cited the period Sengar had already served in incarceration, noting it exceeded the minimum threshold under Section 4 of the POCSO Act (post-2019 amendment) prior to considering suspension of sentence.

---

CBI’s Arguments Against the High Court

The CBI has strongly contested the high court’s approach, highlighting that its reasoning ignores the common legislative intent behind multiple statutes that impose stricter accountability on public officials. In its appeal, the agency argued:

1. Purposive and Harmonious Interpretation Needed: A comprehensive reading of IPC Section 21, Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 5(c) of POCSO reveals a consistent legislative objective: to hold individuals in positions of trust and authority accountable for abuse of power or position. This ensures MPs, MLAs, and other public functionaries are treated as public servants or persons in authority wherever abuse occurs.
2. MLAs Hold Public Trust: The agency emphasized that a sitting MLA occupies a constitutional office with responsibilities toward the electorate, and that such a position inherently carries heightened duties toward the state and society.
3. Scope of Section 5(c) POCSO: The CBI clarified that Section 5(c) seeks to punish exploitation of children by persons in positions of authority, including political figures. The offence involves direct abuse, severe physical and psychological harm, and breach of trust, and is of greater societal gravity than corruption offences.
4. Prior Supreme Court Precedents: MPs and MLAs have historically been treated as public servants in both anti-corruption and accountability contexts. The agency argued that suspension of sentence for life convicts should only be granted where the conviction appears prima facie unsustainable and there is a strong likelihood of success on appeal.
5. Balancing Liberty and Public Interest: The CBI stressed that mere long incarceration or delay in hearing appeals does not justify suspension in heinous crimes. Courts must weigh individual liberty against societal interest and gravity of the crime, particularly when vulnerable victims are involved.

The agency also highlighted that suspension of Sengar’s sentence could pose a serious threat to the survivor and her family, reiterating previous concerns about victim safety.

---

Implications for Child Protection Law

The CBI’s appeal underscores the importance of purposive interpretation in child protection legislation. Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault by persons in positions of trust or authority, is designed to impose stringent mandatory penalties and ensure enhanced liability on offenders who exploit their public position.

By narrowly interpreting “public servant” to exclude a sitting MLA, the Delhi High Court’s decision, according to the CBI, dilutes the protective intent of the law. The agency emphasized that statutory provisions are interconnected and aim to provide robust safeguards for children against abuse by those who wield power, whether political or administrative.

---

Next Steps

The Supreme Court will consider the CBI’s arguments during the hearing scheduled for Monday, December 29, 2025. The bench is expected to weigh:

• The legislative intent behind POCSO and related provisions.
• The role and authority of MLAs and other public officials.
• The gravity of the offence committed by Sengar.
• The principle of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC.

This hearing comes amid widespread public outrage over the Delhi High Court’s order, which had led to protests near Parliament and Jantar Mantar, and renewed calls for stringent accountability of elected representatives involved in sexual offences.

---

Conclusion

The CBI’s appeal signals a firm stance on ensuring that constitutional officeholders are not exempt from accountability, particularly in crimes involving children. By challenging the narrow interpretation of “public servant,” the agency seeks to reinforce the legislative intent of POCSO and related statutes, ensuring that those in positions of trust cannot exploit power for criminal acts.

Legal experts note that the case has far-reaching implications for child protection laws, the definition of public servant, and the judiciary’s approach to suspension of sentence for life convicts. A decision from the Supreme Court could set a crucial precedent in ensuring that elected representatives and other public functionaries are strictly held accountable for abuse of authority, strengthening child protection and victim rights in India.

---