SC directs Tejpal to surrender within 3 weeks, rejects plea for exemption

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed journalist Tarun Tejpal to surrender within three weeks to undergo his 10-year prison sentence in a 2013 rape case in which he was convicted by the Bombay High Court.

A bench of Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed Tejpal’s plea seeking exemption from surrendering.

“The application seeking exemption from surrendering is rejected. However, the appellant (Tejpal) is granted three weeks’ time to surrender and file a surrender certificate before this court,” the bench said in its order.

The apex court listed his appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for hearing on September 22, subject to the filing of the surrender certificate.

“In case the surrender certificate is filed on or before September 21, 2026, the registry shall list the criminal appeal for hearing on September 22, 2026 before the regular court,” it said.

Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, 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.

On August 6, 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.

During the hearing on Tuesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, said the incident was of 2013 and the journalist had earlier spent around six months in jail in the case.

“He (Tejpal) has throughout been on bail since then. The High Court has directed him to surrender within four weeks. This court may fix the main appeal for hearing on August 31,” he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa Government, said the High Court has given him four weeks to surrender only to enable him to file an appeal and application for exemption from surrendering before the apex court.

“Merit is a relevant consideration in this case. It is a 10-year sentence for aggravated rape,” the top law officer said.

Countering Mehta’s submissions, Sibal said, “It is not a rape at all”.

“How much time do you (Tejpal) need to surrender?” the bench asked Sibal and senior advocate Aman Lekhi, who also appeared for Tejpal.

Sibal urged the bench to list the main appeal for hearing as early as possible.

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 24, the apex court said it would consider Tejpal’s plea seeking exemption from surrendering on Tuesday.

In its August 24 order, the bench had referred to the court’s 2006 decision in the Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan vs CBI case and said it is mandatory to surrender before the appeal is to be heard.

“Therefore, until and unless suitable orders are passed on the application seeking exemption from surrender, the appeal cannot be listed before the court. Therefore, the prayer made to list the matter before the court without considering the application seeking exemption from surrender cannot be accepted,” the bench said.

On August 20, Tejpal moved the top court challenging the August 6 order of the High Court against his conviction in the case.

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. In its 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.

In its 81-page judgment, 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 also 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”.