Law & Justice

Unequal Justice? What Sengar, Asaram, Ram Rahim and the Akhlaq Case Reveal About Power, Punishment, and Due Process

By Rida Staff

Published:Wed Dec 24 2025 05:30:00 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)

The Print

Activist Ruru

1 5 10

Intensity

Indian Express

Civil-Liberties Ruru

1 5 10

Intensity

Times Now

Populist Ruru

1 5 10

Intensity

Summary

New Delhi / Noida, 24 December 2025:

A set of court decisions and legal developments across unrelated but symbolically connected cases has reopened a long-running public debate about equality before law in India—specifically, whether outcomes in criminal justice meaningfully diverge when the accused are politically influential, religiously powerful, or aligned with dominant social currents. The immediate trigger was a Delhi High Court order suspending the sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar, the former BJP MLA convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the 2017 Unnao rape case, while his appeal is pending.

Sengar’s case has long been emblematic of extreme abuse of power. After sustained public outrage, he was convicted for the rape of a minor. Separately, he was also convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for the custodial death of the victim’s father, who was arrested on what courts later found to be fabricated charges and died in custody. While the suspension of the rape sentence opens the door for Sengar to remain out of jail during appellate proceedings, his continued incarceration presently depends on the second conviction, which has not yet been suspended. The legal possibility that both sentences could eventually be stayed has intensified concerns about how long convicted offenders with political clout can effectively avoid punishment.

This development sits alongside the continuing parole and furlough regimes enjoyed by other high-profile convicts. Asaram, convicted for the rape of a minor, has repeatedly been granted parole on medical and other grounds. Similarly, Gurmeet Ram Rahim, serving a 20-year sentence for crimes against women, has received multiple extended furloughs, including during politically sensitive periods such as elections. These cases have fuelled a perception that incarceration for powerful convicts increasingly resembles conditional confinement rather than continuous punishment.

Running parallel—but in a different register—is the renewed judicial attention to the Mohammad Akhlaq lynching case from 2015. Akhlaq, a resident of Bisada village in Uttar Pradesh, was lynched by a mob on suspicion of storing beef. The killing became a defining moment in national debates around cow vigilantism, communal violence, and state accountability. In December 2025, the Uttar Pradesh government sought to withdraw the prosecution against the accused, a move widely interpreted as a retreat from pursuing justice in a case with global visibility.

That attempt was halted when a local court in Surajpur rejected the withdrawal plea, categorised the case as “most important,” ordered daily hearings, and directed senior police officials to ensure the protection of evidence. The court’s intervention was framed by several commentators as a reassertion of due process at a moment when executive discretion appeared poised to undermine it. The judicial decision does not conclude the case, but it materially alters its trajectory by signalling that the trial must proceed on merits rather than be administratively abandoned.

Together, these strands expose a tension at the heart of India’s criminal justice system. On one hand, appellate remedies, parole, furlough, and prosecutorial discretion are all lawful instruments embedded in due process. On the other, their cumulative and asymmetric application—particularly in cases involving rape, custodial death, or mob violence—raises uncomfortable questions about whether justice outcomes are shaped as much by status and influence as by evidence and law.

Why this matters:

These cases are not merely about individual guilt or innocence; they shape public faith in the rule of law. When convicted rapists and powerful figures repeatedly secure relief while victims of communal violence must rely on courts to prevent cases from being withdrawn altogether, the signal to ordinary citizens is corrosive. The legitimacy of the justice system depends not only on legal correctness, but on the perception—and reality—that punishment, protection, and process apply evenly, regardless of political power, religious following, or social alignment.

Expand

Outlet-Wise Coverage Analysis | Ruru Ratings

Outlet	Ruru Ratings	Intensity
The Print	Activist Ruru	7
Notes and Context: The Print’s opinion piece argues that recent sentence suspensions, paroles, and furloughs for powerful convicts demonstrate a systemic tilt in favour of the influential. It juxtaposes Sengar’s sentence suspension with the repeated release of Asaram and Ram Rahim, and extends the argument to the Akhlaq lynching case, framing these developments as evidence that justice operates differently for the politically or ideologically protected.
Indian Express	Civil-Liberties Ruru	5
Notes and Context: The Indian Express editorial focuses narrowly on the Akhlaq case, welcoming the trial court’s rejection of the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to withdraw prosecution. It frames the decision as a reaffirmation of due process and judicial independence, and avoids extrapolating the episode into a broader indictment of the justice system.
Times Now	Populist Ruru	6
Notes and Context: Times Now foregrounds the court’s rejection of the withdrawal plea as a “big step for justice,” highlighting reactions that portray the order as a rebuke to political interference. The emphasis is on the symbolic victory for victims and public sentiment rather than on structural legal analysis.

Comparative Analysis

Convergence:

All outlets agree on the core developments: the suspension of Kuldeep Sengar’s sentence pending appeal, the continued parole or furlough enjoyed by other convicted offenders such as Asaram and Gurmeet Ram Rahim, and the Noida/Surajpur court’s refusal to allow withdrawal of prosecution in the Akhlaq lynching case, accompanied by directions for expedited hearings and evidence protection.

Frame Divergence:

The divergence lies in how far each outlet is willing to generalise from these facts—whether they represent isolated legal decisions or symptoms of a deeper structural imbalance.

The Print:

The Print adopts a sweeping, moral argument. It links disparate cases to argue that power, ideology, and influence increasingly determine post-conviction outcomes, especially in crimes involving sexual violence or communal hatred. The tone is accusatory and systemic, portraying judicial relief and executive discretion as tools that blunt accountability for the powerful.

Indian Express:

Indian Express narrows its lens. It treats the Akhlaq case as a test of prosecutorial integrity and judicial resolve, praising the court for rescuing due process without extending the analysis to unrelated convictions or parole regimes. The focus is institutional rather than emotive.

Times Now:

Times Now frames the court’s decision as a victory narrative, amplifying statements that cast the rejection of the withdrawal plea as a moral and political rebuke. The coverage centres on public anger and vindication rather than on legal nuance or precedent.

Quote Spectrum

Delhi High Court order (on Kuldeep Sengar): Sentence suspended pending appeal; appellant not required to remain in custody during the hearing of the appeal.

— The Print

Indian Express (editorial voice on Akhlaq case): The Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to withdraw prosecution reflected an unwillingness to uphold the rule of law, making judicial insistence on due process both necessary and reassuring.

— Indian Express

Opposition reaction quoted by Times Now: “The judgment is a big step for justice and a strong message against attempts to withdraw cases of mob lynching.”

— Times Now

Rida Synthesis

Viewed together, the cluster illustrates a justice system pulled in two directions at once. Judicial interventions—such as the Surajpur court’s insistence on continuing the Akhlaq trial—demonstrate that institutional checks remain alive and capable of resisting executive overreach. At the same time, repeated sentence suspensions, paroles, and furloughs for influential convicts reveal how legally permissible relief can, in practice, hollow out the meaning of punishment.

The deeper question raised is not whether each individual order is lawful, but whether their cumulative pattern undermines the principle of equal accountability. When relief appears routine for the powerful and precarious for victims, the burden shifts onto courts to repeatedly “rescue” due process from political context. A justice system that relies on exceptional judicial firmness to maintain basic equality risks normalising inequality everywhere else.

Reference Bench (Official-Data Panel)

The Print — Opinion column by Vir Sanghvi on sentence suspension, parole, and unequal justice (24 December 2025)
Indian Express — Editorial on the Surajpur court rejecting withdrawal of prosecution in the Akhlaq lynching case (24 December 2025)
Times Now — Report on the Noida/Surajpur court’s order dismissing the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to withdraw charges (24 December 2025)
Judicial records and publicly reported judgments in the Unnao rape case, Akhlaq lynching case, and convictions of Asaram and Gurmeet Ram Rahim

Disclaimer: The analysis, assessments, and comparative interpretations presented above are based on a good-faith, editorial evaluation of publicly available news reports from the referenced outlets. All Ruru ratings, tone/framing observations, and analytical inferences are inherently subjective and reflect Rida’s structured rubric-based methodology rather than any claim of definitive accuracy or intent of the underlying publishers. Readers are encouraged to consult the original articles and primary sources to form their own independent understanding of the events, viewpoints, and narratives discussed. Nothing in this document should be construed as attributing motives, endorsing any political or institutional position, or making any factual representation beyond what is contained in the cited material.