India

Supreme Court Rejects Request to Suspend Tarun Tejpal’s 10‑Year Sentence

By Abraham Thomas

The Supreme Court declined to suspend the 10‑year sentence imposed by the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on journalist Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale heard Tejpal’s appeal against the conviction and sentence, as well as the Goa government’s appeal seeking a harsher penalty. The court held that, on a prima facie basis, the prosecution witnesses, evidence, and recorded messages did not justify a suspension. Tejpal had asked the court to release him on bail pending the appeal, citing the upcoming Diwali festival, but the bench again said it was not inclined to grant a suspension. The court granted leave to the appeal, effectively admitting both the appellant’s and the state’s appeals. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Agarwal represented Tejpal and attempted to challenge the prosecution’s narrative, arguing that the alleged rape, which occurred on 7 November 2013 at a hotel during the organisation’s annual event, could not have happened in the lift as claimed, citing CCTV and technical expert testimony. They also pointed out that the FIR was filed on 22 November. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, countered by presenting messages in which the accused apologized to the victim and highlighted the victim’s personal connections to the accused’s friend and to Tejpal’s daughter. The court noted that the trial court had treated the victim harshly, asking uncomfortable questions, and that the high court had observed this conduct. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the case, focusing solely on the suspension issue. The top court had earlier directed Tejpal to surrender in August; he complied on 14 September. He maintained that he had remained on bail during the high‑court appeal and that the prosecution had not alleged any misuse of his liberty. The trial court had acquitted the 63‑year‑old journalist in 2021, a decision the high court later described as “perverse.” The high court’s conviction was based on the victim’s testimony and related evidence, and it applied various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to rape and assault or criminal force against a woman.