Tarun Tejpal Challenges 10-Year Sentence In Supreme Court; Goa Govt Questions Maintainability Of Appeal

A Bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe heard arguments from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Goa government.

At the outset, Mehta questioned the maintainability of Tejpal’s appeal, arguing that he must either place on record a certificate confirming his surrender or seek exemption from surrender. “These are the two options,” Mehta submitted.

Sibal, however, opposed the submission, pointing out that the Bombay High Court had itself granted Tejpal four weeks’ time to surrender and that the protection remained in force.

He argued that there was no question of Tejpal surrendering first and then seeking relief from the Supreme Court when the High Court’s order itself permitted him not to surrender until the stipulated period expired.

Sibal submitted that if the Supreme Court refused to stay the sentence, Tejpal would surrender and undergo imprisonment, but questioned the requirement of surrender as a precondition when the High Court had already granted him relief.

The Solicitor General relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI, submitting that the suspension of sentence and relief granted by the lower court for a limited period could be extended only at the Court’s discretion.

Mehta further argued that Section 389 of the CrPC and Order XXI Rule 13A of the Supreme Court Rules operate independently and have to be considered on their own terms.

Sibal maintained that Tejpal’s plea was a regular criminal appeal and not a bail application.

Despite my request, submissions and arguments, if this Court says that this is not a bail matter, I am ready to go to jail, Sibal submitted, maintaining that the relief granted by the High Court continued to operate.

Mehta interjected that Tejpal had been incorrectly briefed and asserted that the matter was not an SLP.

Sibal responded that the proceedings arose from the Court’s criminal appellate jurisdiction.

Justice Alok Aradhe then observed that the matter was a criminal appeal and said the Court would pass an order.

Sibal requested that the matter be listed on August 31, submitting that no prejudice would be caused by doing so. He also referred to the complainant’s allegations and argued that they did not correspond with the CCTV footage.

“Justice should be done. We have said what we had to say. The Court can now pass an order,” Sibal submitted.

The Supreme Court is seized of Tejpal’s challenge to the Bombay High Court judgment that reversed the trial court’s acquittal and convicted him in the 2013 rape case, sentencing him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

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.