The Supreme Court on Monday declined to list former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal’s appeal against his conviction and 10-year jail term in the 2013 sexual assault case for hearing without first deciding whether he should be required to surrender. The court held that his plea for exemption from surrender must be considered before the appeal can be listed on merits.
Justice Alok Aradhe directed that Tejpal’s application seeking exemption from surrender be taken up on Tuesday, after his counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, sought listing of the application along with the appeal on August 31.
The order means justice Aradhe is expected to first decide whether Tejpal must surrender before his appeal can proceed or whether he can be exempted from surrendering while his challenge to the conviction is considered.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, had opposed listing the appeal without first deciding the surrender issue, relying on the pertinent provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The provisions, he argued, makes surrender a mandatory pre-condition for listing a criminal appeal.
The order records that Mehta nevertheless fairly conceded that the Supreme Court has the power to dispense with the requirement of surrender.
The court referred to an earlier judgment holding that a corresponding provision under the repealed 1966 Supreme Court Rules was mandatory. “Therefore, until and unless, suitable orders are passed on the application seeking exemption from surrender, the appeal cannot be listed before the court,” said justice Aradhe.
{{/usCountry}}The court referred to an earlier judgment holding that a corresponding provision under the repealed 1966 Supreme Court Rules was mandatory. “Therefore, until and unless, suitable orders are passed on the application seeking exemption from surrender, the appeal cannot be listed before the court,” said justice Aradhe.
{{/usCountry}}The judge noted that Sibal had not addressed the court on the merits of Tejpal’s application seeking exemption from surrender. He therefore granted counsel an opportunity to make submissions on the application and listed it for consideration on August 25.
Earlier in the day, Mehta had told the court that Tejpal must either surrender or secure an exemption from surrender before pursuing his appeal against the conviction and sentence.
Sibal had opposed the submission, arguing that the Bombay High Court at Goa had granted Tejpal four weeks to surrender while declining to stay his conviction. He had urged the Supreme Court to hear the appeal on August 31, arguing that Tejpal remained protected by the high court’s order.
The high court, on August 6, overturned Tejpal’s 2021 acquittal and convicted him of two counts of aggravated rape, sentencing him to 10 years’ imprisonment and imposing a fine. It granted him four weeks to surrender. He is therefore required to surrender in the first week of September.
Tejpal challenged the verdict before the Supreme Court on August 20. In his appeal, Tejpal has denied the allegations and challenged the high court’s findings that led to his conviction. He has argued, among other things, that the prosecution case was inconsistent with CCTV footage and questioned the circumstances in which the allegations emerged.
The Goa government has separately sought enhancement of his sentence to life imprisonment, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the offences. The government has also challenged the high court’s direction that the sentences for the two aggravated rape offences run concurrently, arguing that the alleged assaults took place on successive days and involved separate criminality.
The case relates to allegations that Tejpal sexually assaulted a junior female colleague twice in an elevator during the Tehelka THiNK festival in Goa in November 2013. Tejpal has denied the allegations.
The trial court had acquitted him in May 2021, but the high court reversed the acquittal this month, finding the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence “not only unreasonable but perverse”, and had relied on preconceived notions while assessing the complainant’s testimony. It found that Tejpal occupied a position of “dominance, control, trust and authority” over the woman as her employer and mentor.