**Supreme Court Criticizes Public Pressure on Judiciary in Unnao Case**
The Supreme Court of India expressed its discontent on Monday regarding the public pressure exerted on the judiciary in the Unnao rape case, particularly following the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of former BJP legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar. The court condemned the trend of taking legal disputes to the streets and emphasized the importance of addressing such matters within the courtroom.
During a hearing on a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the High Court’s order, the bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, noted that there are attempts to exploit the situation for political gain. The court warned against the public intimidation of the judiciary, highlighting the need for respect for legal processes.
The Supreme Court’s remarks came after a lawyer informed the bench that images of the Delhi High Court judges who granted Sengar bail were being circulated online, accompanied by calls to “identify these judges.” Counsel for Sengar pointed out that certain social media accounts were making unfounded allegations against the judges involved in the case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, defended the integrity of the judges, stating that they are among the finest in the country and that any attempts to tarnish their reputation should be condemned. He expressed confidence in their judgment and criticized the forces attempting to undermine honest judges.
The Supreme Court reacted strongly, asserting that it is aware of the political maneuvering surrounding the case and reiterated that legal arguments should be confined to the courtroom. The court stated, “You cannot bring all this to the streets. Argue inside the court, not outside.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, raising significant legal questions regarding the interpretation of “public servant.” The court noted that if the High Court’s interpretation were accepted, it could lead to absurd conclusions regarding who qualifies as a public servant.
The Supreme Court ordered a counter-affidavit to be filed within four weeks and acknowledged the unusual circumstances of the case, where Sengar had already been convicted in a separate matter. Consequently, the court decided to stay the operation of the Delhi High Court’s order, ensuring that Sengar would not be released based on that ruling.
**FAQ**
**Q: What was the Supreme Court’s stance on public pressure regarding the Unnao case?**
A: The Supreme Court criticized public pressure on the judiciary, emphasizing that legal matters should be addressed in court rather than in public forums.