New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday did not allow journalist Tarun Tejpal’s application, seeking exemption from surrender. This means Tejpal would have to surrender if he wants the Supreme Court to hear his criminal appeal against the Bombay High Court judgement convicting him of raping a junior colleague in 2013.
A single-judge bench of Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed Tejpal’s application, giving him time till 22 September to surrender. The bench said it would list his appeal for hearing on that day only if Tejpal surrenders and the certificate confirming it is filed in the court before the fixed date.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Aman Lekhi, pressed the court to list Tejpal’s appeal for hearing instead of insisting on his surrender. They informed the court that the High Court had on 6 September granted the Tehelka founder four weeks’ time to surrender.
Sibal also submitted that Tejpal has been on bail throughout the proceedings except for the six months and is a senior citizen now.
Tejpal’s legal team also referred to the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 to contend it was not necessary for the court to hear his application on exemption first and then the appeal. They argued that both can be heard together.
But Goa government counsel, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, maintained that unless Tejpal surrenders or has obtained exemption from surrendering, the top court cannot hear his appeal. Mehta said the 1970 Act relied upon by Tejpal was a redundant law as the current legislation contains provisions for appellate jurisdiction, dealing with surrender and hearing of appeals.
Further, Mehta contended that the merits of the case are relevant as the convict committed an aggravated form of rape. But this was met with stiff opposition by Tejpal’s lawyers, who said they were not before the court to argue on merits.
Within 10 minutes of the hearing, Justice Aradhe stated orally: “I am dismissing the application, tell me when will you surrender.”
Initially, Tejpal’s legal team asked for a fortnight, but later requested for three weeks to surrender and then file the certificate for it before the court.
On 6 August, the Goa bench of the Bombay HC overturned the 2021 trial court order acquitting Tejpal in the rape case, sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, and granted him four weeks to surrender.
Tejpal has filed an application seeking exemption from surrender, apart from moving a plea against his conviction.
During an in-chamber proceeding Monday, Sibal requested Justice Aradhe’s bench to list Tejpal’s application seeking surrender exemption for hearing before 31 August. Mehta opposed Sibal’s prayer to advance the hearing, and quoted Supreme Court Rules 2013 to assert that it was mandatory for an appellant to surrender to enable hearing of appeal against conviction before the top court.
Mehta, however, added that the court has the power to do away with the requirement of surrender.
Tejpal’s appeal against conviction remains statutorily ineligible for listing until the appellant has surrendered or secured an explicit exemption. This was in terms of Order XX Rule 3 of the Supreme Court rules.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)