In a case that deeply unsettled the nation’s collective conscience, the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar—on what was framed as a “technical” interpretation of law—raised profound questions about justice, power, and institutional responsibility. By debating whether a sitting MLA qualifies as a “public servant” under the IPC, the ruling appeared to privilege semantic precision over survivor protection and constitutional morality.
In this exclusive conversation with a LawStreet Journal, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani responds with unflinching candour, moral urgency, and constitutional clarity. Speaking not only as a seasoned lawyer but also as a woman, she unpacks how such judicial reasoning risks normalising rape culture, emboldening political impunity, and perpetuating systemic injustice against the most vulnerable.
Significantly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India intervened and cancelled the bail, reaffirming a foundational principle: constitutional courts must stand firmly with survivors, not hide behind technical loopholes. This dialogue transcends a single case—it interrogates the moral authority of the law, the true spirit of the POCSO Act, and the dangerous precedents that judicial formalism can set.
When technicalities threaten justice, the Constitution must speak louder—and be heard.
