New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Delhi High Court’s order that had opened the possibility for former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lawmaker Kuldeep Singh Sengar to be released, underscoring the gravity of the legal issues involved and the rights of the victim in the 2017 Unnao rape case.

A special vacation bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices JK Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, heard the appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the high court’s December 23 order. The apex court noted that substantial questions of law had arisen, particularly regarding Sengar’s status as a “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and his simultaneous conviction under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The top court issued a notice to Sengar, directing him to respond to the CBI’s plea within four weeks.

“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 bench stated.

Sengar, a four-time legislator from Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, was convicted in 2019 under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC and Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act for the sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. A year later, he was also convicted under IPC Section 304 for the death of the survivor’s father while in police custody. The high court had ruled that while Sengar was convicted under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, an elected representative did not fit the definition of a “public servant” under Section 21 of the IPC, effectively challenging the applicability of certain provisions of the Act to his case.

The Supreme Court, however, expressed serious concern over this interpretation. “This definition of public servant (given by the high court) in the context of POCSO is a little bit disturbing. We are worried if a constable or patwari will be a public servant but an elected member of a legislative assembly or council who is accused of such an offence, by this definition, will be exempt,” the bench remarked.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, emphasised that Sengar’s position of power and dominance as an elected representative made him accountable under the POCSO Act. Mehta also noted that even if POCSO provisions were argued not to apply, the IPC conviction under Section 376(2)(i) carried a minimum sentence of ten years, extendable to life imprisonment.

The apex court observed that the high court had not fully considered Sengar’s simultaneous convictions, particularly under IPC Section 376, and that it appeared to have proceeded under the assumption that he was convicted under only one statute. “These are some of the best judges we have…but at the same time, we all are prone to committing mistakes,” the bench commented.

The court clarified that its stay was necessary due to the complex legal questions arising from Sengar’s dual convictions and the interpretation of the “public servant” definition under the POCSO Act. It identified two critical questions of law: whether the concept of “public servant” is applicable when the victim is a minor, and whether the definition of “public servant” under Section 5(c) of POCSO should have a broader meaning than in the IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act.

The survivor of the assault, who had previously attempted self-immolation outside the Uttar Pradesh chief minister’s residence to draw attention to her case, welcomed the Supreme Court’s order. “I have got justice from the Supreme Court. I will not rest until he is hanged. I will keep fighting,” she said. Her lawyer, Mahmud Pracha, highlighted the influence Sengar wielded and the attempts to shape narratives in his favour.

Sengar’s family, however, expressed disappointment at the top court’s decision. “We have been stripped of our dignity, our peace, and even our basic right to be heard. Still, I hope for justice,” his daughter, Aishwarya Sengar, said in a statement.

The Supreme Court also addressed concerns about public perception and political narratives surrounding the case. The bench noted the “unfortunate” attacks on the high court judges and warned against political exploitation of judicial processes. It instructed the survivor’s lawyer that while the victim has the statutory right to appeal against the suspension of the sentence, she should exercise faith in the judicial system rather than resorting to public protest.

Sengar’s lawyers, senior advocates Siddharth Dave and N. Hariharan, argued against what they perceived as criticism of the high court, but the bench emphasized the need to consider the broader legal and societal implications of the convictions.

The Supreme Court’s intervention ensures that Sengar will remain in custody for the time being, safeguarding the interests of the victim while the legal questions concerning the applicability of the POCSO Act and the interpretation of “public servant” are thoroughly examined. The case now awaits further proceedings, with Sengar’s appeal in the high court still pending.

This order represents a crucial step in balancing legal technicalities, the legislative intent of child protection laws, and the rights of victims in high-profile cases involving politically powerful individuals.