Unnao Rape Case: Supreme Court Steps In, Yet Closure Eludes Survivor
Unnao rape case: SC stays High Court order on Sengar, but justice remains delayed and the survivor’s safety still at risk.
Unnao Rape Case: SC Stays Bail, but Justice Remains Overdue
The Supreme Court on Monday (December 29) stayed the Delhi High Court’s December 23 order that had suspended former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s life sentence and granted him conditional bail in the Unnao rape case. The stay by the apex court ensures that Sengar will remain in custody for now. But even this intervention can only be described as the narrowest form of relief for the survivor. Just days earlier, the High Court had put Sengar’s jail sentence on hold while his appeal was pending, reopening wounds in a case that has come to symbolise how slow, fragile and conditional justice can be for survivors of sexual violence. More than eight years after the crime, the fact that the system is still oscillating between relief and restraint points to a grim truth: justice in this case is long overdue.
Explaining its decision, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that “in view of peculiar facts where the convict is convicted for a separate offence,” the Supreme Court would stay the operation of the Delhi High Court’s order, adding that Sengar “shall not be released pursuant to the said order.” The language itself reveals the limited scope of the intervention. The Supreme Court has not examined the merits of the High Court’s reasoning; it has only prevented the immediate consequence of Sengar’s release. This makes the order reactive rather than corrective. The legal logic that allowed a convicted rapist’s sentence to be suspended without identifying any glaring infirmity in the trial court judgment remains intact, untested and uncorrected. Justice, in effect, has been paused — not fortified.
Alongside the stay, the Supreme Court issued notice to Sengar on the CBI’s plea challenging the suspension of his life sentence. But this too offers little finality. The stay merely gives the prosecution time to argue its case. For the survivor and her family, the uncertainty continues. They have consistently said that orders such as the High Court’s bail relief deepen their fear for safety and erode confidence in the criminal justice system. From their perspective, every such judicial reprieve sends a message that convictions in cases of sexual violence are negotiable, reversible, and subject to procedural manoeuvring — a message that no survivor should have to confront.
Also Read: Delhi Rape Survivor Recounts Horror | FULL INTERVIEW
CBI Faces Criticism for Handling of Unnao Rape Case
The handling of the case by investigative and prosecuting agencies has also come under scrutiny. The survivor’s counsel has accused the CBI of failing to present its strongest arguments before the Supreme Court, choosing instead to confine itself to a narrow legal point. According to the counsel, the apex court was not asked to engage with the full weight of evidence or the broader context of Sengar’s conduct. Compounding this concern was the fact that the survivor’s lawyer was not made a party to the proceedings, effectively excluding the victim’s voice from a hearing that determined her immediate safety. Critics argue that this procedural positioning limited the scope and depth of arguments before the bench, leaving crucial aspects of the case unexplored at a critical juncture.
The survivor herself has publicly questioned the timing of the CBI’s intervention, pointing out that the case reached the Supreme Court only after delays, implying that stronger or earlier CBI action could have prevented the High Court relief in the first place. Her criticism is not merely emotional; it reflects a factual concern about prosecutorial delay. That sense of belated response has only intensified the perception that the burden of vigilance and urgency is repeatedly placed on the victim, rather than on the institutions meant to protect her.
Public Outrage and Distrust in the Legal System
Meanwhile, public anger over these developments has spilled onto the streets. Protests in Delhi, including at Jantar Mantar, have seen activists and supporters of the survivor express deep distrust in the legal process. Demonstrators have clashed with police and voiced resentment not just against the High Court’s decision, but against what they see as a system that moves too slowly, intervenes too late, and prioritises procedural caution over lived harm. The outrage is not episodic; it reflects a broader collapse of public confidence in judicial consistency when power and sexual violence intersect.
Also Read: Delhi's Forgotten Survivor of Gangrape and Public Shaming
Much of that anger is directed at the Delhi High Court’s decision itself. The criticism is not that courts lack the power to suspend sentences, but that the manner in which this power was exercised cuts against settled criminal law and victim-centric jurisprudence. Indian courts have consistently held that suspension of sentence after conviction in heinous crimes such as rape must be exceptional and grounded in clear prima facie doubts about the conviction. The High Court did not point to any such infirmity. Instead, it relied on technical interpretations that fragmented accountability, treating each of Sengar’s convictions in isolation despite their shared factual context. This approach ignores the reality of continuing criminality and weakens deterrence.
Equally troubling was the High Court’s narrow reading of who qualifies as a “public servant” under the POCSO Act, a reading that diluted aggravated liability. Courts have repeatedly adopted purposive interpretations in cases involving sexual offences against minors, recognising that authority and coercive power extend beyond formal definitions. By privileging literalism over legislative intent, the judgment appeared disconnected from the protective purpose of the law. Most strikingly, the decision failed to meaningfully engage with the survivor’s documented fears, the history of intimidation against her family, and the vast power imbalance between her and the convict — factors that Supreme Court jurisprudence now treats as constitutionally relevant.
That the Supreme Court had to step in to halt Sengar’s release is itself telling. When the apex court speaks of “peculiar facts” and moves swiftly to prevent an outcome, it suggests that a judicial red line was crossed. Yet even this intervention addresses consequence rather than cause, leaving the underlying reasoning unexamined.
Unnao rape case lays bare the cost of delayed justice
The deeper tragedy of the Unnao rape case lies in what the survivor has endured while the system deliberated. Raped in 2017 as a minor, she struggled even to have an FIR registered. When she persisted, her father was arrested and later died in custody. She attempted self-immolation near the Chief Minister’s residence to draw attention to her plight. In 2018, a car carrying her and her relatives was rammed, killing two of her aunts. In 2019, Sengar was finally convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment — a milestone that arrived years too late and at enormous personal cost. Since then, prolonged litigation, appeals and intermittent reliefs have kept her in a state of constant fear, living under security cover and dependent on the very institutions she was forced to challenge.
The High Court’s December 2025 order reopening the possibility of Sengar’s release placed the burden of vigilance back on the survivor. The Supreme Court’s stay has provided a temporary pause, nothing more. As her counsel has said, it is not a victory — just time to breathe.
This is why the Unnao rape case stands as a stark illustration of the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied.” Delay here did not merely postpone accountability; it reshaped a life. It cost a childhood, a father, family members, and years of safety and certainty. When courts speak of the liberty of the accused, the language is abstract. For a survivor, delayed justice is bodily, psychological and permanent. In this case, the system partially intervened, but only after the damage could not be undone.
