Why Strict Laws Are Not Ending Rape In India

The Delhi High Court's decision to suspend the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case, granting him conditional bail, has sparked widespread protests and public outrage. Currently, Indian rape laws—governed primarily by Sections 64 and 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—mandate rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, extendable to life, for non-consensual sexual intercourse. In aggravated cases, such as those involving a minor or a person in authority, enhanced punishments apply, including imprisonment for the remainder of one's natural life. Furthermore, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act strengthens these provisions, classifying penetrative assault by individuals in positions of trust as aggravated, attracting sentences ranging from twenty years to life.

The Kuldeep Singh Sengar case, however, exemplifies the challenges in enforcing these laws when the accused wields political power. Although the former MLA was convicted under Section 376 IPC and relevant POCSO sections, the High Court suspended his sentence pending appeal. The court ruled prima facie that an MLA does not qualify as a "public servant," a technical interpretation that excluded stricter aggravated penalties. This ruling underscores how statutory definitions and political influence can intersect to delay justice. The case, which involved witness intimidation, the custodial death of the victim's father, and a trial transfer, highlights the systemic hurdles in prosecuting influential figures.