New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard an appeal filed by former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal against the Bombay High Court judgment overturning his acquittal in the 2013 rape case and sentencing him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
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, submitting that he must either place on record a certificate confirming his surrender or seek exemption from surrender.
“These are the two options,” the Solicitor General submitted.
Sibal opposed the submission, pointing out that the Bombay High Court had granted Tejpal four weeks’ time to surrender and that the protection granted by the High Court 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 declined 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.
Mehta relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v CBI, submitting that suspension of sentence and relief granted by a lower court for a limited period could be extended only at the discretion of the Supreme Court.
The Solicitor General 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 a special leave petition.
Sibal responded that the proceedings arose from the Supreme 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 expected to pass an order on the matter.
