Why did CBI cite LK Advani while staying bail order of Kuldeep Sengar?

The Supreme Court stayed Kuldeep Sengar's bail after the CBI challenged the Delhi High Court order and relied on the LK Advani case to argue that legislators can be treated as public servants

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Delhi High Court order granting bail to former Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, after the Central Bureau of Investigation challenged the reasoning behind the relief. In seeking the stay, the central agency relied on a 1997 Supreme Court ruling in the LK Advani case to argue that elected legislators can be treated as public servants under criminal law, which became central to the court’s intervention.

 

“Tentatively, we are inclined to stay the order. Generally, the principle is since the person has walked out, the court does not take away the liberty. But here, the situation is peculiar since he is inside the jail for another case,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.

 

 

The vacation Bench also issued notice to the former BJP MLA and gave him four weeks to file his response to the CBI’s petition.

 

Why the Supreme Court intervened

 

The Supreme Court’s intervention came after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenged the high court’s reasoning, calling it legally flawed.

 

The CBI argued that the Delhi High Court wrongly relied on a narrow interpretation of the law while granting bail to Sengar. A key part of its challenge was based on a 1997 Supreme Court ruling in the ‘LK Advani vs CBI’ case.   

 

What the LK Advani judgment was about

 

The 1997 ‘LK Advani vs CBI’ case dealt with corruption allegations against senior political leaders. The CBI had filed cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, claiming that illegal payments were made to politicians in return for government favours.

 

A major legal question before the Supreme Court at the time was whether elected representatives like MPs and MLAs could be treated as “public servants” under anti-corruption law. The court ruled that they could, and held that legislators fall within the definition of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 

CBI’s argument in Sengar case

 

The CBI told the Supreme Court that the same principle should apply in the Sengar case. It argued that if MPs and MLAs can be treated as public servants in corruption cases, there is even stronger reason to apply that standard in cases involving serious crimes such as sexual offences against children.

 

According to the agency, the high court interpreted the Pocso Act too narrowly and ignored binding Supreme Court precedent. The CBI warned that excluding MLAs from the definition of public servants under Pocso would weaken the purpose of the law.

 

About the Unnao rape case

 

The case dates back to 2017, when a minor from Unnao district accused Kuldeep Sengar, then the sitting MLA from Bangarmau, of raping her. The case also involved the death of the survivor’s father in custody, for which Sengar was separately convicted.

 

A trial court later sentenced Sengar to life imprisonment for the rape.

 

Earlier this week, the Delhi High Court had suspended his life sentence and granted bail while hearing his appeal. The high court held that Sengar’s position as an MLA did not automatically make him a “public servant” under the Pocso Act.

 

It noted that the Pocso Act does not specifically include MLAs in its definition of public servants and ruled that Sengar could not be subjected to stricter provisions meant for public servants or persons in positions of trust.