Unnao Case: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Security Withdrawal for Survivor's Family, Demands Threat Assessment from Delhi Government

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has once again turned its focus to the enduring safety concerns of the 2017 Unnao rape survivor and her family, questioning the recent withdrawal of their Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) security cover. Hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the survivor's mother, a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale on Monday directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to submit a detailed affidavit within two weeks, clarifying the current threat perception faced by the family.

The application urgently seeks the recall of a March 25, 2024, order which, acting on a plea by the Union of India, permitted the withdrawal of CRPF protection for the survivor’s mother, siblings, uncle, and his immediate family. The Union had argued for continuing protection only for the survivor herself. The family now alleges that this decision has left them vulnerable, citing a recent attack on their residence and the persistent influence of the convicted former BJP MLA, Kuldeep Singh Sengar.

This development resurrects critical legal questions surrounding the state's post-conviction obligations, the mechanics of threat assessment, and the judiciary's role in safeguarding the life and liberty of victims and witnesses in high-profile criminal cases.

The Procedural Impasse and Judicial Scrutiny

The hearing on October 7 highlighted a procedural gap that the Court was keen to address. Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the applicant, informed the bench that a request for security was pending with the Delhi Legal Services Authority. However, the bench sought concrete evidence of a formal application to the appropriate government authorities.

Justice Pankaj Mithal clarified the jurisdictional responsibilities, noting, "the State of Uttar Pradesh has no role in providing security cover at this stage," as the family resides in Delhi. The bench’s insistence on procedural propriety was underscored by Justice PB Varale’s remark when counsel could not produce the relevant documents: “Unless you show that, it will be very difficult to pass any orders.”

In response, counsel for the NCT of Delhi submitted that the applicant had not formally approached any local authority for security. This prompted the Court to reinforce its directive, tasking the Delhi government with a proactive assessment. The formal order states: "Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to file additional documents. Learned Counsel for the NCT Delhi press for time and is allowed two weeks time to affidavit clearly stating if the petitioner has approached the Government for appropriate security cover or if there is any threat perception to her life."

This order effectively shifts the immediate onus onto the Delhi government to not only report on any applications received but also to independently evaluate the existence of a threat, a crucial step in ensuring the family's protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A Troubled History: From Court-Mandated Protection to Alleged Attacks

The Supreme Court's deep involvement in this case began in 2019, following a letter from the survivor to the then Chief Justice of India expressing grave fears for her life. The Court took suo motu cognizance, leading to several landmark directives:

• Transfer of Cases: All five related cases were transferred from the CBI Court in Lucknow to the District Court in Delhi to ensure a fair and expeditious trial, free from local influence.
• CRPF Protection: In its August 1, 2019, order, the apex court mandated round-the-clock CRPF protection for the survivor and her extended family, an exceptional measure reflecting the severe threat perception.
• Regular Threat Assessments: The Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct and submit a threat perception assessment for the survivor and her family every three months.

The necessity of these measures was tragically validated in July 2019 when a truck rammed the car carrying the survivor, killing her two aunts and leaving her and her lawyer critically injured. This incident was widely seen as an attempt to silence her.

The current application alleges a significant lapse in this monitoring framework. According to the plea, the last threat assessment report was filed by the Uttar Pradesh government in 2022, with no subsequent updates from either the state or the CBI. This alleged two-year gap in compliance with the Court's directive forms a critical basis for the family's argument that the decision to withdraw security in March 2024 was made without a current and comprehensive evaluation of the risks.

The family's fears are not abstract. The plea claims that "soon after the withdrawal of security, the applicant's residence was attacked and ransacked during the night, with valuables stolen." This incident, they argue, is a direct consequence of their renewed vulnerability and a testament to the fact that the convict, Kuldeep Singh Sengar, "continues to wield significant influence and poses a serious danger."

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

This case brings several pivotal legal principles into sharp focus for practitioners and the judiciary:

• The Doctrine of Continuing Mandamus: The Supreme Court's ongoing supervision illustrates the principle of a continuing mandamus, where the court retains jurisdiction to ensure its orders for justice and protection are effectively implemented over time. The current hearing is a direct exercise of this power.
• Victim/Witness Protection vs. State Discretion: While providing security is typically a function of the executive based on threat assessments, this case demonstrates the Court's authority to intervene when there is a perceived failure of the state machinery or a grave threat to fundamental rights. The withdrawal of security, an executive decision, is now under judicial review.
• The Onus of Proof and Procedural Diligence: The bench's demand for documentation regarding security applications serves as a reminder to legal counsel of the importance of procedural diligence. The Court requires a clear, documented basis for its interventions, placing the onus on petitioners to demonstrate they have exhausted available administrative remedies.
• The Scope of Threat Assessment: The case raises questions about the parameters of a threat assessment. Should it be confined to immediate, specific threats, or should it encompass the broader context of the convict's power, influence, and past conduct? The family's plea argues for the latter, holistic approach.

The Supreme Court's next hearing, contingent upon the affidavit from the Delhi government, will be crucial. It will determine whether the CRPF cover is restored and will likely set a precedent for how security withdrawal for vulnerable victims in high-profile cases is handled. The Court's decision will signal the extent to which the justice system's responsibility extends beyond the courtroom verdict to ensure that the pursuit of justice does not cost victims their lives and liberty.

Case Details: IN RE ALARMING RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED CHILD RAPE INCIDENTS , MA 1415/2025 in SMW(Crl.) No. 1/2019