New Delhi, Aug 24 The Supreme Court on Monday said it will pass orders on journalist Tarun Tejpal's plea for exemption from surrendering after he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the Bombay high court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Alok Aradhe reserved its decision after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, said Tejpal's plea was not maintainable as the journalist had not filed a separate application for exemption from surrendering.
He said the plea was not maintainable also for the reason that Tejpal had not furnished a certificate that he had already surrendered as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
At the outset, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, submitted that the Supreme Court Rules did not apply to the case as the high court had already granted him four weeks to surrender.
Mehta referred to earlier top court decisions and said that where the appeal has been filed, it shall expressly state whether the convict has surrendered or not.
He said in the case where the convict has not surrendered, the appeal should not be accepted unless accompanied by an exemption application from surrendering.
Mehta said, "The existence of the appeal is dependent on either filing a certificate that he has surrendered or, alternatively, he will have to pray for exemption from surrendering. These are only two options. Look at the seriousness of the matter."
Sibal urged the bench to list the matter on August 31 before the regular bench as Tejpal has time till the first week of September to surrender.
"I don't know why my friend (Mehta) insists that I must go to jail when I'm protected… We are not seeking any extension. I'm already protected. Please list the matter on August 31," Sibal urged the bench.
The bench said that it would pass orders in the matter and reserved its decision.
On Monday, Tejpal's plea was listed in chamber matters, where cases are taken up for preliminary or procedural directions and then placed before a regular bench for hearing.
On August 20, Tejpal moved the court challenging the August 6 order of the Bombay high court against his conviction in a 2013 sexual assault case.
The appeal against the August 6 order of the high court has been filed through advocate Aditya Samaddar.
Earlier, the Goa government moved the top court seeking an enhanced sentence for the former editor of Tehelka, contending that the case warranted imprisonment for life.
The high court convicted Tejpal of rape and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, overturning his acquittal by the trial court five years ago.
Tejpal was convicted of raping a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in 2013 during an event organised by the magazine in Goa. Earlier, the 62-year-old journalist had claimed that he was a political victim.
In a petition filed in the apex court, the Goa government has contended that the sentence imposed by the high court is grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by Tejpal.
The challenge is confined to the quantum of sentence and the direction for concurrent operation of sentences, it has said.
In its verdict, the high court had termed the trial court's 2021 order "perverse", noting that it fell for the notion that a sexual assault complainant must be a "perfect victim" and should conduct herself in a certain way so as to appear credible.
The high court had asked Tejpal to surrender within two weeks but later extended the period to four weeks on a request from his lawyers.
In its 81-page judgment, the high court had expressed strong disapproval of the way the defence put the victim in the dock and focused on her personal life, and said it found it surprising that the trial court "remained silent and allowed the defence to harass and humiliate her during the cross-examination".
Tejpal was convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 376(2)(f) (rape committed by a person in a position of trust or authority), 354(a) (sexual harassment) and 354(b) (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe). Under Section 376(2)(f), the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
While Tejpal had pleaded for leniency, claiming that he was a "political victim" and the father of two daughters, Solicitor General Mehta had demanded the maximum punishment to send a strong message that "no means no".
