The Bombay High Court’s 6 August 2026 verdict convicting former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal of rape and sentencing him to 10 years in prison has put the spotlight back on one of the most disturbing aspects of the case: the treatment of the woman who accused him of sexual assault.
Tejpal was accused of sexually assaulting a junior female colleague inside a hotel elevator in Goa on November 7 and 8, 2013. He denied the allegations and was acquitted by a Goa sessions court in 2021. The Goa government’s appeal against that acquittal ultimately reached the Bombay High Court, which has now overturned the acquittal and convicted Tejpal, as reported in NDTV.
The conviction makes the contents of an old letter published in the aftermath of the allegations all the more difficult to ignore.
The letter, authored by Nirupama Sekhri, sister of leftist rag Newslaundry’s founder Abhinandan Sekhri, was addressed directly to the complainant. And rather than treating her as a woman who was a victim of sexual assault, the writer subjected her to an extraordinary interrogation over her own conduct.
It began with the chilling declaration: “I do not see you as a victim”
The writer then described the complainant as a victim of “bubblegum feminism.”
What followed was effectively a trial of the survivor’s behaviour.
Why did she enter the elevator with Tejpal a second time?
Why did she not hit him?
Why did she merely plead and beg?
Why did she not kick, punch or physically fight him?
Why did she not immediately report the alleged assault to hotel security, the management or police?
The letter explicitly demanded answers to these questions.
The implication was unmistakable: if she had behaved differently, the alleged assault might somehow have been prevented or handled more appropriately.
But the Bombay High Court has now convicted Tejpal of rape.
That makes the old rhetoric particularly jarring.
The woman who was told she did not look like a “victim” has now seen the accused convicted by the High Court in the very case over which she was publicly questioned and shamed. The court’s verdict does not retroactively determine every allegation made in public commentary, but it does make the letter’s fixation on the victim’s behaviour impossible to dismiss as harmless commentary.
The letter went further than questioning her actions. It argued that Tejpal himself had become the victim of the controversy.
“he has become the victim, not you.”
The victim was accused of putting other men at risk by making allegations before their veracity had been established and was told to consider the anguish allegedly caused to Tejpal’s parents, daughters, relatives and friends.
The alleged assault itself was even described as “a small occurrence” that the victim had supposedly allowed to be portrayed as an “ultimate felony.”
And this is where the episode becomes particularly uncomfortable for an organisation that has built its identity around media accountability.
The victim was not merely questioned about evidence. She was mocked, pathologised and morally judged. Her feminism was attacked. Her workplace interactions were scrutinised. Her decision-making was dissected. Her failure to immediately report the alleged assault was held against her.
Meanwhile, the accused was presented as the person whose reputation and dignity required protection.
The letter even suggested that young women could use their “physical charms, wiles and bodies as tools for negotiation”, before accusing such women of expecting men to indulge their behaviour and then demanding sympathy when things went wrong.
That is not simply scepticism about a criminal allegation.
It is victim-blaming.
And the High Court’s conviction makes the contrast impossible to overlook.
The legal process ultimately provided Tejpal with a defence, a trial, an acquittal, an appeal and now a High Court verdict. The victim, meanwhile, was publicly subjected to questions about why she did not fight, why she returned to the elevator and why she did not report the alleged assault quickly enough.
Thirteen years after the alleged incident, the Bombay High Court has now found Tejpal guilty and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The question that now deserves to be asked is not merely what happened in that elevator.
It is why so much of the public commentary surrounding the case was devoted to putting the woman who complained under a microscope, while the man she accused was portrayed as the real victim.
The verdict has changed the legal status of the case.
It should also force a reckoning with the shameful rhetoric that surrounded the survivor.
Newslaundry told her she was not a victim. She was called a “bubblegum feminist.” She was asked why she did not fight back. She was blamed for damaging the accused’s reputation. The accused has now been convicted of rape.
That ‘feminism’ of Newslaundry deserves to be remembered.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
