Supreme Court rejects Tarun Tejpal’s plea, asks him to surrender within 2 weeks

Appearing for Tejpal, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal referred to the High Court verdict and said he was on bail for 13 years, except for the six months after the case was filed. Sibal also cited provisions of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, which gives a convict the right to challenge a verdict that reverses an earlier acquittal and hands down a heavy sentence.

Sibal pointed out that a trial court had earlier acquitted Tejpal and this ruling was overturned in the High Court. “Therefore there’s no impediment here. Under the (1970) Act, I don’t have to seek exemption. My appeal can be heard straightaway. Therefore Your Lordships can hear the appeal straightaway… and grant me the exemption,” Sibal said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, challenged Sibal’s reliance on the 1970 Act, saying it does not have anything to do with whether exemption from surrender can be granted. He also touched upon the merits of the case, saying Tejpal “was in more than one capacity in this offence”.

Sibal took exception to the Solicitor General going into the merits of the case. Mehta replied, “According to me, one of the considerations for grant or exemption would be the merits of the case.”

Justice Aradhe intervened, “I have gone through the judgment….broadly we look into the nature of the offence and the period of sentence.” The court then went on to reject the exemption application and asked Tejpal to surrender.

The case dates back to November 2013, when Tejpal allegedly assaulted the survivor on two separate occasions inside the lift of a hotel in Goa where they were attending a literary festival.

Tejpal was acquitted of all charges by an Additional Sessions court in Mapusa in May 2021. Then, the court had said the woman’s messages to the accused established she was “neither traumatised nor terrified” and that this “completely belies” the prosecution’s case.

The Goa government appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s conclusions and convicted him. The high court said “the trial court proceeded on a notion that a victim of sexual assault must behave in a stereotypical manner”.

The high court noted that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court was “not only unreasonable, but perverse”, and criticised it for permitting an “invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim’s past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages, directly violating statutory embargoes… that prohibit questioning a victim’s character or past relationships”.

Tejpal has now approached the Supreme Court, contending that the high court judgment is “erroneous, misconceived, contrary to facts and the record, and is directly contrary to settled law”. The Goa government, too, has moved the Supreme Court, seeking life imprisonment for Tejpal.