The Supreme Court on Monday (29 December 2025) stayed the order of the Delhi High Court, in which the life sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case was suspended. The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Augustine George Masih issued a notice to Sengar and sought his reply on the CBI petition in which the High Court order has been challenged. Meanwhile, the victim’s lawyer Mahmood Pracha has raised questions on the investigating agency.

CBI is not cooperating: Mahmood Pracha

Mahmood Pracha said that CBI is still not cooperating. Speaking to news agency ANI, the victim’s lawyer said, ‘We felt that the CBI would hide things from us and they did so. They (CBI) withheld the copy till last night. This has been a strategy not only in this case, but also in the Hathras case.

#WATCH Delhi: Mehmood Pracha, Advocate for Unnao rape case survivor, says,” …The CBI is still not cooperating. They lived up to our expectations that they would hide things from us… They withheld the copy till about last night… This has been a strategy not only in this… pic.twitter.com/B6e2qxHemk

— ANI (@ANI) December 29, 2025

Kuldeep Sengar got death sentence: Victim

The victim’s family has expressed happiness over the stay order of the Supreme Court. The victim said, ‘I am very happy with the court’s decision. I got justice from the Supreme Court and am confident that I will continue to get it in future too. I will continue to fight this battle and ensure that he gets death sentence, only then our family will get true justice. I am grateful to all those who stood by me and helped me get justice. My father’s soul will rest in peace only when Kuldeep Singh Sengar is hanged.

Law should work without pressure: Kuldeep Sengar’s sister

Meanwhile, Kuldeep Sengar’s younger daughter Ishita Sengar wrote a post on X that her family has been quietly waiting for justice for the last eight years and has maintained its faith in the law and institutions. She wrote that her identity has been limited to just the daughter of a BJP MLA and she has had to face constant hatred, abuse and threats on social media. He said, ‘My family neither wants any concession nor sympathy, but only wants the law to work without any pressure or fear and the evidence to be investigated impartially.’

Delhi’s Patiala House Court has given a big blow to lawyer Mahmood Pracha by rejecting his petition in which he had demanded to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict nullified. The court has imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh on the lawyer, terming the petition as ‘frivolous’, misleading and an abuse of the judicial process.

District Judge Dharmendra Rana said in his order that the petition filed by Mahmood Pracha is not only beyond the facts but it also raises questions on the credibility of the judicial system. The court said that it appears that the petitioner did not read the Ayodhya verdict completely, otherwise such confusion would not have arisen. The court admitted that this case was filed only for the purpose of creating publicity and spreading misunderstanding.

Lawyer misinterpreted Justice Chandrachud’s speech

In the petition, Pracha had claimed that the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had said in a speech that the Ayodhya verdict was based on the solution given by Lord Shri Ram Lala. On this, the court clarified that Justice Chandrachud had only said that he had prayed to God for guidance and not received any solution from any party. The court said that the lawyer filed the case without understanding the difference between God and juristic personality i.e. a legally recognized deity.

Court expressed displeasure and gave strict warning

Making a strong comment, the court said that when the protectors become the predators, then the situation becomes worrying. The court said that such negligence cannot be expected from a senior lawyer. The court also added that it is necessary to take strict action against such baseless cases so that the time and resources of the judicial system are not wasted.

Reference to Judge Protection Act

Patiala House Court clearly said in its decision that this case is a bar under the ‘Judges Protection Act, 1985’. According to this Act, no civil or criminal action can be taken against any judge for judicial work. Upholding the order of the lower court, the court increased the amount of fine from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh and said that it is everyone’s responsibility to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the judiciary.