Supreme Court Hearing on Tejpal's Appeal

Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal has challenged in the Supreme Court the Bombay High Court's verdict overturning his acquittal in the 2013 rape case and sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, argued that the maintainability of Tejpal's appeal depends on either filing a certificate confirming his surrender or seeking an exemption from surrender before the court. "These are the two options," Mehta said.

The arguments took place before a bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe, with Tejpal's counsel Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presenting opposing arguments.

Surrender or Exemption: The Core Dispute

Tejpal has challenged the Bombay High Court's verdict overturning the trial court's decision to acquit him and sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. Mehta urged the court to consider the maintainability of Tejpal's appeal in this context.

Kapil Sibal argued that the rule does not apply in this case because the High Court has already granted Tejpal relief from surrender. Therefore, he said, there was no question of applying the rule. The High Court had given Tejpal four weeks to surrender, until the first week of September.

Sibal said, "Suppose the court refuses to grant a stay, then I will have to go to jail. But when the High Court itself has granted a stay and that order is still in force, why should I surrender? In such a situation, what is the point of surrendering first and then filing an appeal?"

Legal Precedents and Rules

Referring to an earlier Supreme Court case, Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan vs CBI, Tushar Mehta said the matter could also be viewed from another perspective. The special court had suspended the sentence and granted relief for a certain period. Whether or not that relief should be extended is a matter of the court's discretion. However, he said, in their view, it would be subject to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 13A of the Supreme Court Rules.

Mehta argued that Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules are independent provisions. There was also a dispute over whether the appeal should be treated as a special leave petition or a criminal appeal.

Court's Stance and Next Steps

Justice Alok Aradhe said: "This is a criminal appeal. We will pass an order on it." The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Goa government and Tejpal's counsel. The court reserved its order on Tejpal's plea seeking exemption from surrender.

Sibal also mentioned that the matter was listed for August 31 and pointed to CCTV footage that he said did not match the complainant's statement.

Background of the Case

The case stems from an incident in 2013 at a hotel in Goa, where Tejpal was accused of sexual assault. The Bombay High Court had originally acquitted Tejpal in 2021. However, on August 6, the High Court overturned that acquittal, convicting Tejpal under relevant provisions and imposing a fine of more than Rs 10 lakh. The Goa government had sought a life sentence for Tejpal.

The Supreme Court's decision on whether Tejpal must surrender or be exempted will determine the next steps in his appeal.