Today, the Supreme Court raised concerns in a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the grant of bail to former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, over an interpretation that would treat lower-level government officials as “public servants” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, while excluding elected legislators from its ambit.
Kuldeep Sengar, who was an MLA at the time of the incident, has contested the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act on the ground that he does not fall within the definition of a “public servant”.
Relying on Section 2(2) of the POCSO Act, which imports the definition of “public servant” from Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sengar during the hearing, has argued that an MLA is not recognised as a public servant under existing law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih heard the matter and stayed the Delhi High Court’s order suspending Sengar’s sentence and granting him bail during the pendency of his appeal against conviction.
Issuing notice to Sengar, the Court observed that the case raised substantial questions of law, including the scope and meaning of “public servant” under the POCSO framework. While noting that bail orders in favour of a convict are ordinarily not stayed without hearing them, the bench clarified that a stay was justified in the present case as Sengar had not been released and continued to remain in custody in another matter.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the POCSO Act does not define “public servant” and must therefore be interpreted contextually, particularly in light of Section 42A, which gives the Act overriding effect. He argued that for the purposes of POCSO, a public servant would include any person in a position of dominance over a child, and misuse of such dominance would attract aggravated offence provisions.
According to the CBI, Sengar, being a powerful MLA in the area at the relevant time, exercised such dominance over the survivor, who was below 16 years of age.
When the bench queried whether the status of being a “public servant” became irrelevant once the victim was a minor, the Solicitor General responded in the affirmative, stating that penetrative sexual assault was already an offence on the date of the incident and that aggravation depended on surrounding circumstances such as abuse of authority or dominance.
Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and N. Hariharan, appearing for Sengar, opposed the submissions, contending that an MLA cannot be treated as a public servant for the purposes of aggravated offences under the POCSO Act. They argued that a penal statute cannot import definitions from another law unless expressly provided, and that the IPC consciously excludes MLAs from the definition of “public servant”.
Expressing concern over the implications of such an interpretation, Chief Justice Kant remarked that accepting this view would lead to an anomalous situation. “We are only worried that if this interpretation is accepted, a constable or a patwari will be a public servant for the purpose of committing this offence, but an elected MLA or MP will be exempted,” he observed.
Concluding that the legal issue concerning the definition of “public servant” and its application under the POCSO Act required authoritative determination, the bench issued notice in the matter.
Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh Sengar, SLP (Crl) No. 21367 of 2025