The Supreme Court refused to stay Tarun Tejpal’s 10-year sentence for the 2013 rape

The Supreme Court on Friday (Nov 06, 2026) refused to stay the 10-year jail sentence imposed on journalist Tarun Tejpal by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court in a rape case in 2013. However, the court agreed to hear his appeal challenging the Supreme Court’s August verdict quashing his acquittal in a Goa court.

A bench of MM Sundresh and PB Varale held that a prima facie examination of the evidence, including witness statements and reports placed on record, did not warrant suspension of sentence.

“From a prima facie point of view, particularly in view of the prosecution witnesses and the material produced and the reports on record, we do not find any suitable reason for granting reprieve,” the Bench observed.

Mr. Tejpal also sought interim bail to spend Deepavali with his family, but the Bench rejected his plea.

The bench, however, allowed the appeal both in Mr. Tejpal’s petition challenging his conviction and in the Goa government’s appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

During the hearing, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Mr Tejpal, sought to discredit the complainant’s account of the alleged sexual assault, saying it contradicted CCTV footage and technical evidence.

Mr. Sibal informed the Bench that the alleged incident took place on November 7, 2013 at a hotel where the annual function of Tehelka magazine was held, when Mr. Tejpal was its editor and the complainant was an employee.

He argued that the complainant’s claim of being sexually assaulted inside the hotel lift was contradicted by CCTV footage and the testimony of technical experts who pointed out that the lift stopped on every floor. He said the alleged assault could not have occurred during the two minutes and nine seconds in question, during which the elevator doors opened twice.

“The whole story is false… During those 2 minutes and 9 seconds, the elevator doors on the ground floor opened twice. Her case was that they did not open and if she had opened them, she would have run out,” Mr Sibal said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, countered Mr. Tejpal’s submission by pointing out to the Bench the reports in which he had apologized to the complainant. Mr. Mehta also pointed out the interpersonal relations between the two, saying that they were not just employer and employee, as the complainant was the daughter of Mr. Tejpal’s friend and she is also friends with his daughter.

This prompted the Bench to examine whether counsel was suggesting that the complainant had no motive to falsely accuse Mr. Tejpal.

“So you don’t think there was any motive for the victim to implicate the accused?” Judge Sundresh noted.

Mr Mehta also argued that the trial court effectively put a “survivor” on trial, assuming that a sexual assault complainant must be the “perfect victim” and behave in a certain way to be considered credible. He pointed out that the High Court took note of these findings and criticized the way the trial was conducted.

However, the Bench refused to examine the merits of the case at this stage and made it clear that it was only dealing with the issue of suspension of sentence.

The Supreme Court ordered Mr. Tejpal to surrender in August, after which he surrendered on September 14. In his plea seeking exemption from surrender, he pointed out that he remained on bail while the High Court appeal was pending and that the prosecution had not registered any case of him abusing his freedoms.

In its judgment on August 6, the High Court overturned the trial court’s May 2021 verdict acquitting Mr. Tejpal and found him guilty of two counts of aggravated rape. He sentenced him to 10 years in prison and imposed a fine. The case arose out of allegations that Mr. Tejpal sexually assaulted a younger female colleague twice in an elevator during the Tehelka THiNK festival in Goa in November 2013.

In overturning the acquittal, the High Court found serious error in the trial court’s assessment of the evidence, calling it “not only unreasonable but perverse”. It said the complainant’s testimony was viewed through preconceived notions, noting that Mr Tejpal, as her employer and mentor, exercised “dominance, control, trust and authority” over her.

Published – 06 Nov 2026 15:57 IST