Delhi Court Convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar for Impersonating Supreme Court Judge

A New Delhi court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for attempting to interfere with the judicial process by impersonating a Supreme Court judge and his secretary to pressure a special judge into granting him bail while in police custody.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra convicted Chandrasekhar of impersonating and threatening a public servant, alongside criminal intimidation through anonymous communication, describing the act as an "absurd theatrical production."

The case dates back to April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in custody in connection with a corruption case. Using the mobile phone of a police constable named Manjeet, he placed a call to Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary. Posing as a sitting Supreme Court judge and his private secretary, Chandrasekhar demanded immediate release on bail and warned the special judge of "serious professional repercussions" if she refused to comply.

Following the call, Judge Chaudhary contacted the Supreme Court and spoke directly with the actual private secretary of the judge concerned. She was informed that no such phone call had originated from the office and that the individual named by the caller was not employed there.

In its judgment, the court noted that Chandrasekhar's actions went beyond ordinary cheating, characterizing them as an attempt to undermine judicial independence. The court stated that judicial decisions are based strictly on law and evidence rather than private communications, deception, or manufactured authority.

The court observed that Chandrasekhar had overestimated his ability to deceive the judiciary, remarking that impersonating a Supreme Court judge or his secretary was an act of institutional defiance. It warned that permitting such tactics could establish an invisible parallel judicial system run through clandestine phone calls.

The conviction was secured through electronic records and witness testimonies, which the court held established an unbroken chain of proof despite investigative lapses by Delhi Police, including the failure to recover the mobile phone or seize CCTV footage. The court also directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police or the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police to re-examine Constable Manjeet's role to determine if fresh departmental or criminal action is warranted.