The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court on Saturday concluded the three-day final hearing in the Goa government’s appeal against the 2021 acquittal of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 alleged rape case, with his defence arguing that the alleged sexual assault narrative was fabricated to secure a Rs 1 lakh fellowship grant to write a book on violence against women.
Senior advocate Aabad Ponda, who concluded the defence’s arguments after addressing the court since July 16, also argued that the case was politically motivated and sought to challenge the complainant’s credibility by citing her conduct, digital records and WhatsApp conversations with friends.
Ponda insisted that it was a politically made-up case against Tejpal also read some WhatsApp conversations between the complainant and her friends and stressed that the complainant had written that she intended to “unleash a reign of sexual terror on unsuspecting thinkers” and although the complainant later described the message as a joke, it formed part of the contemporaneous record that should be considered while assessing her credibility.
The matter was heard by a division bench of Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit S Jamshandekar. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, will present the prosecution’s rejoinder on July 30, after which the appeal is likely to be reserved for judgment.
On the final day of the hearing on Saturday, Ponda argued that the complainant’s conduct after the alleged incidents was inconsistent with the prosecution’s case that she was traumatised.
Referring to her explanation that she did not leave the event immediately because she feared losing her job, he submitted that digital records suggested otherwise.
According to the defence, the complainant had already been exploring other employment opportunities, corresponding with another publication, received a higher-paying offer linked to the TV show Satyamev Jayate, and applied for a year-long fellowship to write a book on violence against women.
As Ponda advanced his submissions, Justice Gokhale asked, “Are you saying that this whole episode was made up for the grant?”
He replied that a narrative was being built up and argued, “Can someone who is writing about violence against women, but she does not go to the police? Are you going to believe such a person? All this creates very serious doubt. She has managed to do what she came to do.”
Justice Gokhale responded, “But ultimately she did stand by her statement.”
Ponda also argued that instead of immediately initiating criminal proceedings, the complainant was engaged in discussions over a settlement with Tehelka.
Referring to messages placed before the court, he submitted that she discussed seeking a severance package from the publication while also exploring other legal options.
The defence further relied on WhatsApp conversations between the complainant and her friends, arguing that one message in which she wrote she intended to “unleash a reign of sexual terror on unsuspecting thinkers” formed part of the contemporaneous record, although she later described it as a joke.
Ponda submitted that the material should be considered while assessing her credibility.
On the apology email sent by Tejpal, the defence argued that it could not be treated as an admission of guilt. Ponda submitted that the complainant initially sought an apology through Tehelka’s internal mechanism for “closure” instead of filing a criminal complaint.
He argued that the terms of the apology were suggested by the complainant, while the email itself was drafted by then Managing Editor Shoma Chaudhury without Tejpal’s knowledge.
He also submitted that during cross-examination, the complainant repeatedly stated that she did not recollect events when confronted with documentary material.
DEFENCE POINTS TO SURVIVOR’S ‘LIES’
Over the three-day hearing, Ponda sought to demonstrate what he described as the complainant’s “propensity” to lie and highlighted what he termed contradictions in her testimony, particularly regarding the alleged molestation inside the hotel lift.
Relying on CCTV footage, technical evidence and testimony from lift experts, hotel staff and police witnesses, the defence argued that the complainant’s version of how the lift was allegedly manipulated was mechanically impossible.
It also contended that her account changed during cross-examination and that CCTV footage did not support allegations that she was pulled back into the lift or followed by Tejpal after exiting it.
WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT
The appeal stems from the Goa government’s challenge to the 2021 judgment of a Sessions Court in Mapusa, which acquitted Tejpal of all charges in the 2013 case involving allegations by a former woman colleague that he sexually assaulted her inside the lift of a five-star hotel in Goa during Tehelka’s ThinkFest event.
Tejpal has consistently denied the allegations. The state has argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence and that the complainant’s testimony remained credible throughout the proceedings.
With the defence having concluded its submissions, the High Court will hear the prosecution’s rejoinder on July 30 before deciding whether to uphold or overturn Tejpal’s acquittal.
– Ends
Published On:
Jul 18, 2026 19:38 IST
