Delhi Court Convicts Sukesh Chandrasekhar for Impersonating Supreme Court Judge
A Delhi court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge in 2017 to pressurise a special judge for bail in a corruption case, calling the act a direct affront to the independence and sanctity of the judicial process.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra found Chandrasekhar guilty of offences under Indian Penal Code Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication). In an order dated August 20, the court scheduled the hearing on the quantum of sentence for August 27.
The case stems from an incident on April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case. According to the prosecution, he gained access to the mobile phone of police constable Manjeet and called the official landline and mobile phone of Poonam Chaudhary, who was then the special judge handling Prevention of Corruption Act cases.
During the calls, Chandrasekhar initially claimed to be the private secretary of a then-sitting Supreme Court judge before posing as the judge himself. He attempted to persuade Chaudhary to grant him bail immediately and threatened her with adverse professional consequences if she did not comply.
The court observed that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Chandrasekhar deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to interfere with the administration of justice. The judge noted that the brazenness of the attempt demonstrated the deliberateness with which the criminal design was executed.
Ruling that justice cannot be accessed through manufactured authority, the court noted that the matter was qualitatively different from ordinary cheating, as it sought to undermine judicial independence by misusing the authority of the country's highest court.
The court also directed Delhi Police to re-examine the role of constable Manjeet, including how Chandrasekhar obtained the phone, whether the device was locked, who possessed the password, and why the incident was not promptly reported.
