The Supreme Court of India, which on Sunday rejected Tarun Tejpal's plea for exemption from surrender and directed him to surrender within two weeks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal's plea seeking exemption from surrender following his conviction by the Bombay High Court, and directed him to surrender within two weeks.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Goa, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Tejpal before the bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe.

Sibal: High Court itself granted protection from surrender

Arguing for Tejpal, Sibal submitted that the judgment relied upon by the State did not apply to Tejpal's case, since the Bombay High Court had itself granted protection from surrender in its order. He highlighted that the case dates back to 2013, and that Tejpal has remained on bail for most of the intervening years, is now a senior citizen with a family and two daughters, and that there has been no allegation of misconduct against him while on bail. "Both sides have moved on with their lives," Sibal submitted.

He further argued that the appeal arises from the reversal of an acquittal, and that under Section 2A, Tejpal was not required to first surrender or seek exemption for the Supreme Court to hear the criminal appeal. Justice Aradhe noted in response, "It was a criminal appeal."

Sibal also pointed out that the Solicitor General's opposition rested on the mandatory Supreme Court Rules, submitting: "The Act is there, but there is no requirement under the Act. In these circumstances, My Lords should grant exemption." Justice Aradhe observed that Mehta had conceded that the Court has the power to do away with the exemption requirement.

Mehta: Suspension was only to allow the exemption plea, not to sit on merits

Solicitor General Mehta countered that while the High Court had suspended the sentence, this was only to enable Tejpal to seek exemption from surrender; "not to approach the Court on the main appeal." He submitted that on merits, "the petitioner was involved in this offence in more than one capacity."

When Sibal objected that the Court had asked counsel not to address the merits, Mehta argued that reliance on the Supreme Court judgment concerning the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act was misplaced, since at that time no appeal mechanism existed. "We now have an appellate procedure under the CrPC and the new code. This was a temporary piece of legislation," he submitted, adding that the Court should also examine on merits whether this was a case deserving exemption.

Sibal objected again: "My Lords, it is unfair. This should not be about the merits of the case. The issue is only exemption. He should not start addressing the merits."

Justice Aradhe responded that the Court had to look at the nature of the offence and the period of sentence, adding, "I can assure you, I have gone through the judgment."

Mehta maintained his position, stating that the merits were relevant given that Tejpal's own application was based on merits, and stressed that the conviction was for a 10-year term for aggravated rape.

Sibal responded, "Don't go into all this."

Court declines relief

After another counsel addressed the bench, Sibal made a final submission noting that the Court had gone through the entire judgment.

The Justice responded: "I have decided against it."

The Court then asked how much time Tejpal would need to surrender, ultimately directing him to surrender within two weeks following his conviction by the Bombay High Court.

Background

The Goa government also approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to the Tehelka founder in the 2013 sexual assault case.

The move came days after the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court convicted Tejpal and sentenced him to 10 years in prison on August 6, overturning his acquittal by the trial court in 2021. The High Court had also directed the 63-year-old journalist to surrender before the Goa Police within four weeks.

The case dates back to November 2013, when a junior Tehelka employee accused Tejpal of sexually assaulting her inside a hotel elevator at a Goa resort during the magazine’s annual Thinkfest event. Tejpal was prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including provisions relating to rape and assault or criminal force against a woman.

The trial court had acquitted him in 2021. However, while overturning the acquittal, the High Court described the trial court's judgment as “perverse” and criticised its approach to assessing the complainant's testimony, particularly the expectation that a survivor should behave like a “perfect victim” to be considered credible.

A complaint was filed against Tejpal for sexually assaulting his colleague in a hotel in Goa in November 2013. Tejpal was charged with offences punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), 354-A (sexual harassment), 354-B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 376(2)(f) (person in a position of authority over women committing rape) and 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of control) of the IPC.

He was acquitted by the trial court in May 2021, following which the State of Goa challenged the acquittal before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. On Thursday, the High Court allowed the State's appeal, convicted Tejpal and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Case Title: Tarunjit Tejpal v. State of Goa

Bench: Justice Alok Aradhe

Order Date: August 24, 2026

Tags: