The Supreme Court of India on October 14 deferred the hearing of the criminal appeal filed by Asaram, a convicted individual currently serving a life sentence for sexual assault. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran instructed that the proceedings regarding the challenge to his conviction and life sentence in the 2013 Jodhpur rape case be taken up only after he surrenders upon the conclusion of his current 20-day parole period. The court further directed the registry to prepare both digital and physical sets of the trial court records to be provided to all parties involved, ensuring that the necessary documentation is available for a comprehensive review when the matter resumes in November.

The judicial development follows the dismissal of a separate plea in which the petitioner had sought to challenge a Gujarat High Court order. That order had denied him temporary bail to visit his ailing wife in connection with a separate rape case registered in Gandhinagar in 2013. The bench permitted the withdrawal of this plea after it was clarified that the petitioner is already enjoying a 20-day parole granted by the Rajasthan High Court, thereby rendering the urgent request for temporary release in the Gujarat matter moot for the immediate term.

The timeline surrounding these proceedings has been complex, involving overlapping convictions across two states. In the Jodhpur case, the Special POCSO Court at Jodhpur had sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life in 2018. This conviction was later challenged before the Rajasthan High Court, which delivered a judgment in May, setting aside convictions related to certain gang rape charges and specific provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, while upholding the primary conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Navigating Overlapping Parole and Bail Challenges

During the October 14 hearing, the arguments primarily centered on the petitioner’s current legal status and the procedural hurdles created by his incarceration across two different jurisdictions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat, outlined a sequence of events to illustrate the legal strategy employed by the defense. He noted that the petitioner had exhausted various avenues for release on medical grounds before eventually obtaining the current 20-day parole from the Rajasthan High Court.

The Solicitor General argued that the attempt to seek temporary bail from the Gujarat High Court while already being granted parole in the Rajasthan matter served as a secondary strategy after earlier rejections of medical-based parole requests. He also emphasized that the petitioner's release was contingent upon the finality of these procedural requirements. As the bench noted during the session, the Court intends to focus on the broader legal questions once the petitioner is back in custody. Justice Pardiwala stated, "Unless you are able to convince us that because of the lapse the entire conviction would be said to have vitiated, we will look into it."

The petitioner's counsel contended that the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was legally inconsistent with the acquittals regarding other charges, suggesting that the trial court's findings were not sustained by the totality of evidence. Furthermore, the defense raised concerns regarding the petitioner's current medical status, alleging that he had suffered a cardiac event requiring intensive care. In response, the State emphasized the gravity of the trial, specifically referencing that three key witnesses were murdered during the original proceedings, an observation aimed at highlighting the sensitivity and historical context of the case.

Reviewing the Trial Records

The Supreme Court’s decision to summon the complete trial records marks a critical shift toward a substantive examination of the merits of the appeal. By ordering both the Rajasthan and Gujarat records to be processed, the Court ensures that it can evaluate the evidentiary foundations of both the 2013 Gandhinagar case—where the petitioner was convicted in 2023 for raping a disciple—and the Jodhpur case.

The previous bench, presided over by Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu, had already issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed against the Rajasthan High Court’s May decision. That bench had also previously directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to form a medical board to evaluate the petitioner's health, though the focus has now returned to the procedural timeline of the appeal itself. The petitioner’s ongoing 20-day parole, which is set to expire on October 27, effectively creates a window during which the Court has paused any further intervention.

The Supreme Court's insistence that the appeal be heard on a "neat question of law" after the surrender date underscores the judiciary's approach to balancing the individual's rights with the finality of criminal convictions. By consolidating the records and setting a firm date for the resumption of the hearing, the Court has established a clear roadmap for the litigation to proceed in November. The legal community expects that the upcoming hearings will likely delve into the specific evidentiary challenges raised by the High Court's partial acquittal, as well as the overarching question of whether the trial court’s conviction can withstand the scrutiny of the apex court in light of the complex evidentiary landscape developed throughout the decade-long history of these two cases. As it stands, the petitioner remains subject to the conditions of his current parole until the deadline arrives later this month, at which point the procedural requirements for his surrender will be enforced, clearing the path for the Supreme Court to address the appeal in its upcoming November sessions.