Listen to this article:

This is the third and final part of the series. Read part one and two. 

The Bombay high court’s judgment in the Tarun Tejpal case is more than just a major decision on rape law. It reflects the tensions of a society that has undergone rapid social, economic and cultural transformation over the past two decades, compelling courts to interpret constitutional principles within multiple and often conflicting social realities.

This three-part series does not seek to revisit the facts of the case or opine upon the correctness of the judgment. Instead, it uses the judgment as a point of departure to examine larger constitutional questions that have received little attention in public discourse.

By the time the Bombay high court delivered its judgment in the Tarun Tejpal appeal, public debate had hardened into familiar binaries. For many, the judgment represented the long-overdue correction of a deeply flawed acquittal and an affirmation of women’s constitutional rights. For some, the conviction was political and that Tehelka and Tejpal, having long been hostile to the BJP and critical of its governments, had finally been made to pay a political price.

This argument deserves separate examination because its chronology presents an obvious difficulty. Tejpal’s political position had not changed when the Goa trial court acquitted him in 2021. If the BJP-led Goa government had politically engineered the prosecution to destroy an anti-BJP journalist, why did the trial court, operating within precisely that political context, acquit him? And if the subsequent conviction is itself now cited as evidence of political persecution, the allegation has moved beyond the executive to the independence and integrity of the judges.

Suffice it to say that an acquittal followed by a conviction on appeal does not, by itself, establish political interference; appellate courts exist precisely because courts may differ in their assessment of evidence and law. One may disagree with the high court’s reasoning, question its treatment of evidence or debate whether the threshold for overturning an acquittal was properly applied.

New Delhi: All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA) members hold posters regarding women’s rights on the occasion of International Women’s Day, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, Sunday, March 8, 2026. Photo: PTI.

These are legitimate judicial questions. But converting disagreement with the reasoning into proof of political capture is another matter. If an acquittal demonstrates judicial independence while a conviction demonstrates judicial subservience, the verdict itself becomes evidence of the alleged conspiracy. Such reasoning is circular.

When political progressivism meets gender........

© The Wire