Tarun Tejpal must surrender before challenging rape conviction, Goa govt tells SC

Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal challenged his 10-year rape conviction before the Supreme Court. Goa told the court his appeal depends on surrendering or seeking exemption from surrender. Kapil Sibal argued Tejpal need not surrender as the High Court's stay remains in force.Tehelka magazine founder Tarun Tejpal was convicted to 10 years in jail in a rape case. (File photo)Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal has challenged in the Supreme Court the Bombay High Court's verdict overturning his acquittal in the 2013 rape case and sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, argued that the maintainability of Tejpal's appeal depends on either him filing a certificate confirming his surrender or seeking an exemption from surrender before the court. “These are the two options,” Mehta said.The arguments took place before a bench headed by Justice Alok Aradhe, with Tejpal's counsel Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, presenting opposing arguments.Tejpal has challenged the Bombay High Court's verdict overturning the trial court's decision to acquit him and sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court heard his plea.Mehta urged the court to consider the maintainability of Tejpal's appeal in this context. Kapil Sibal argued that the rule does not apply in this case because the High Court has already granted Tejpal relief from surrender. Therefore, he said, there was no question of applying the rule. The High Court had given Tejpal four weeks to surrender, until the first week of September.Sibal said, "Suppose the court refuses to grant a stay, then I will have to go to jail. But when the High Court itself has granted a stay and that order is still in force, why should I surrender? In such a situation, what is the point of surrendering first and then filing an appeal?" Referring to an earlier Supreme Court case, Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan vs CBI, Tushar Mehta said the matter could also be viewed from another perspective. The special court had suspended the sentence and granted relief for a certain period. Whether or not that relief should be extended is a matter of the court's discretion. However, he said, in their view, it would be subject to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 13A of the Supreme Court Rules.Mehta argued that the provisions of Section 389 of the CrPC and the Supreme Court Rules are independent provisions and must be considered on their own terms.Sibal said, "Despite my request, submissions and arguments, if this court says that this is not a bail matter, I am ready to go to jail. This is my regular appeal and the relief is still in force."Solicitor General Tushar Mehta interjected, saying, "You have been incorrectly briefed. This is not an SLP."Sibal responded, "This is an extension of criminal appellate jurisdiction."After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Alok Aradhe said, "This is a criminal appeal. We will pass an order on it."Sibal said that listing the matter for the 31st would cause no prejudice to anyone. He added that whatever the complainant had said did not match the CCTV footage."Justice should be done. We have said what we had to say. The court can now pass an order," Sibal said.- EndsPublished By: Sayan GangulyPublished On: Aug 24, 2026 16:00 IST