Will the acquittal of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case be overturned? The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court is set to deliver its verdict on the appeal by the Goa government on Thursday. The judgment in the case will be closely watched, coming after days of protracted hearings in one of India’s most high-profile trials involving a prominent journalist.
The High Court reserved its order on July 30. At the centre of the appeal is whether the Goa sessions court erred in acquitting Tejpal in 2021 and whether his apology email to the complainant, a junior Tehelka employee, amounted to an admission that a sexual encounter took place. The High Court has directed the former Tehelka editor-in-chief to remain personally present in court on Thursday.
Before we go into what transpired during the High Court hearings, here’s a flashback of what the case is all about.
WHAT IS THE TARUN TEJPAL CASE?
The case dates back to November 7, 2013, in Goa, where Tehelka magazine’s annual Thinkfest event was being held. At that time, Tehelka was one of the most influential investigative magazines, and Tejpal had celebrity-like status. The woman alleged that Tejpal sexually assaulted her in the elevator of Grand Hyatt in Bambolim.
The matter came to light after a trail of emails between the woman, Tejpal, and Tehelka’s then managing editor got leaked. Tejpal stepped down as editor six months after the incident and was also arrested later. He was released on bail in July 2014.
The trial in the case at the Goa sessions court began in 2017. Four years later, Tejpal was acquitted of all charges. In its order, the court said the complainant did not demonstrate any kind of “normative behaviour” that a survivor of sexual assault “might plausibly show”.
However, the acquittal invited widespread criticism and backlash, following which the Goa government challenged the verdict before the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court.
The final arguments were heard by a bench of Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar over three days – which saw the prosecution and defence cite numerous WhatsApp chats, CCTV footage, emails, and testimonies of witnesses to push their case.
While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented Goa, senior advocate Aabad Ponda argued on behalf of Tejpal.
DAY 1: WHAT HAPPENED AT LIFT OF GOA RESORT?
The first day of the hearing centred around the survivor’s key claim – the alleged assault inside the lift of the resort.
Tejpal’s lawyer argued that the woman’s allegation that the Tehelka founder kept the elevator moving by pressing buttons to keep it in a “continuous loop”, which prevented the doors from opening, was mechanically impossible. To buttress his claim, Ponda submitted the testimony of an expert and CCTV records.
“When the emergency stop button is pressed, the lift goes to the closest landing or the floor and stops, and the doors open automatically,” Ponda said, quoting the expert’s testimony.
Quoting the expert, Ponda further said that even if the “close” button was continuously pressed, the doors “will automatically open to the fullest” whenever the lift reached a floor.
Tejpal’s lawyer also said the CCTV footage did not back the woman’s allegation that she was pulled back into the lift when she tried to exit. He said the footage showed Tejpal walking ahead of the woman after they exited the lift.
Solicitor General Mehta, however, maintained that the survivor was a “credible witness” whose testimony withstood extensive cross-examination.
DAY 2: SURVIVOR’S ‘CONDUCT’ AFTER INCIDENT
The survivor’s conduct following the alleged incident formed the crux of the second day’s hearing at the High Court.
Tejpal’s lawyer argued that the woman’s actions contradicted her claim that she was distressed or was in a state of trauma after the incident. Ponda submitted that the complainant continued to participate in social gatherings after the alleged incident.
In one incident, Ponda said, the woman texted Tejpal and asked him to join her for a photograph with Hollywood actor Robert De Niro, whom she was chaperoning at the event.
The lawyer argued that it countered the prosecution’s claim that the woman was “fearful” of Tejpal and was trying to avoid him.
He also placed WhatsApp texts between the survivor and her friends before the court. Ponda said the woman, in one of the messages, stated that she wanted to create a “reign of sexual terror”.
Ponda further submitted that the complainant had a “propensity to lie”. “Amnesia and trauma are her answers to every piercing question,” he said.
TARUN TEJPAL’S APOLOGY EMAIL
One of the key issues before the High Court was an email Tejpal sent to the woman after the alleged incident.
The prosecution argued that the email was an “admission of guilt”. However, Tejpal’s lawyer argued that it was sent under “institutional pressure” to protect Tehelka’s reputation.
“An internal apology email cannot be treated as a voluntary confession of sexual assault… it was allegedly engineered under pressure by Tehelka’s then managing editor,” Tejpal’s lawyer told the High Court.
He also argued that Tejpal was under immense emotional pressure at that time, particularly due to his mother’s illness.
DAY 3: MOTIVE AND RS 1 LAKH GRANT
On the final day of the hearing, the defence sought to bring into focus the alleged motive behind the woman’s claims.
Tejpal’s lawyer claimed the sexual assault narrative was made up by the woman to secure a Rs 1 lakh fellowship grant to write a book on violence against women.
He said much before the incident, the woman was exploring other employment opportunities. Ponda claimed the woman had received an offer linked to the TV show Satyamev Jayate. She also applied for a year-long fellowship to write a book on violence against women, he claimed.
“Can someone who is writing about violence against women not go to the police?” Ponda argued in concluding arguments. He submitted that rather than going to the police, the woman was more inclined towards a settlement with Tehelka.
HOW GOA GOVT COUNTERED ARGUMENTS?
Countering Tejpal’s lawyer, the Goa government argued that there could not be any universal standard for a survivor’s conduct.
SG Mehta said the trial court, while acquitting Tejpal, adopted stereotypical assumptions on how a sexual assault survivor should behave.
The Solicitor General also underscored that the woman’s decision to continue with her “professional duties” after the alleged incident could not be used to undermine her credibility.
He also said the trial court attached undue importance to minor inconsistencies in her testimony. The complainant’s core allegations had remained consistent throughout, SG Mehta said.
On Thursday, the High Court will decide the fate of Tejpal’s acquittal in a case that has been in the spotlight for over a decade.
– Ends
