Delhi High Court Rules Former MLA Sengar Not a ‘Public Servant’ Under POCSO Act, Alters Legal Grounds in Unnao Rape Case
New Delhi: In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has held that Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator convicted in the 2017 Unnao rape case, cannot be categorised as a “public servant” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — a finding that led to the suspension of his life sentence while his appeal is pending. The Times of India+1
Background of the Case
Sengar was convicted in 2019 by a trial court for the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh. The Tis Hazari court in Delhi had sentenced him to life imprisonment — a punishment linked to provisions of aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Times of India
What the High Court Decided
On December 23, 2025, a division bench of the Delhi High Court — comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish V. Shankar — held that Sengar’s status as an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) at the time does not bring him within the definition of a “public servant” under the POCSO Act. The court noted that:
- The POCSO Act does not define “public servant”. Under Section 2(2) of the Act, any term not defined in the statute must be understood as defined in the IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Juvenile Justice Act, or the Information Technology Act — none of which recognise an MLA as a public servant. The Times of India
- The trial court had incorrectly borrowed the definition of a public servant from the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is not applicable under the POCSO framework. The Times of India
Because of this interpretation, the High Court held that Section 5 of the POCSO Act, which prescribes stricter “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” penalties for offences committed by authority figures including public servants, cannot be applied to Sengar’s case under the statute. The Times of India
Impact on Sentencing
The court observed that without the aggravated assault provision, the offence would fall under ordinary penetrative sexual assault provisions of POCSO (Section 3) and related IPC provisions. At the time the offence was committed in 2017 — prior to the 2019 amendment of POCSO — the minimum punishment for penetrative sexual assault was seven years’ imprisonment, which Sengar has already served. Moneycontrol
Taking these factors into account, the High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence pending the hearing of his appeal, subject to strict conditions such as furnishing a personal bond with sureties, depositing his passport, and reporting regularly to police. Moneycontrol
Controversy and Reactions
The order has sparked widespread controversy and public outcry:
- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) — which prosecuted the case — has announced its intention to move the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s suspension of the sentence. The Times of India
- The rape survivor has also expressed deep distress, vowing to approach the Supreme Court and raise concerns about her safety and the implications of the ruling. The Times of India
- Political and social commentators have sharply debated the judgment, with critics arguing that technical interpretations of the law should not undermine justice for victims of serious offences.
What This Means Going Forward
The High Court’s interpretation does not equate to an acquittal. Sengar’s appeal against conviction will be heard by the Delhi High Court in due course, and any final decision on his guilt or sentence will be determined then. The Times of India
This ruling has also raised broader legal questions about how elected representatives are treated under specific statutory frameworks like the POCSO Act and the limits of statutory definitions in criminal law.