Delhi Court Convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar For Impersonating SC Judge
Court calls attempt to influence judge for bail a “direct affront” to judicial independence.
A Delhi court has convicted alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempting to influence a special judge to grant him bail in a corruption case in 2017.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra found Chandrasekhar guilty under IPC Sections 170, 189 and 507, relating to impersonating a public servant, threatening a public servant and criminal intimidation through anonymous communication. The court will hear arguments on the quantum of sentence on August 27.
In an order dated August 20, the court described Chandrasekhar's conduct as a “direct affront” to the independence and sanctity of the judicial process.
The case relates to a phone call made on April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case. According to the prosecution, he obtained access to the mobile phone of police constable Manjeet and used it to contact Poonam Chaudhary, who was then a special judge handling cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court said Chandrasekhar initially impersonated the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge and later posed as the judge himself. He allegedly sought to persuade Chaudhary to grant him bail at the earliest and threatened her with adverse professional consequences if she did not comply.
“A courtroom may be entered through its doors, but justice cannot be entered through the backdoor of impersonation, intimidation or manufactured authority,” the court said.
The judge said the case was different from an ordinary cheating or impersonation matter because the alleged conduct attempted to undermine judicial independence by invoking the authority of the country's highest court.
The court held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Chandrasekhar deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to interfere with the administration of justice.
It also found the charges under IPC Sections 189 and 507 established, noting that the alleged communication sought to influence a judicial officer through supposed superior authority and was made anonymously.
The court further directed Delhi Police to re-examine the role of constable Manjeet, including how Chandrasekhar gained access to his phone, whether it was locked, who knew its password and why the alleged use of the device was not reported promptly.