Sukesh Chandrasekhar Convicted for Posing as Supreme Court Judge in Bid to Secure Bail

A Delhi Court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and allegedly using the fake identity to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts found Chandrasekhar guilty under IPC Sections 170, 189 and 507, relating to impersonation of a public servant, threatening a public servant and criminal intimidation through anonymous communication.

The case stems from April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in a corruption case before Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary.

According to the prosecution, Chandrasekhar accessed the phone of Constable Manjeet and used it to contact the judicial officer. The caller first claimed to be the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge and later another person allegedly posed as the judge himself.

The caller claimed to be acting on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium and allegedly demanded that Chandrasekhar be granted bail or interim bail. The judicial officer was also allegedly threatened with professional consequences if she refused.

The officer later contacted the Supreme Court and confirmed that neither the judge nor the purported secretary had made the call. The trial court found her testimony credible and said it was supported by call records and evidence showing Chandrasekhar’s access to the constable’s phone.

Court Calls Attempt ‘Institutional Defiance’

The court described Chandrasekhar’s alleged impersonation of a sitting Supreme Court judge as an extraordinary attempt to interfere with the judicial process. It observed that judicial decisions are made through court proceedings and the judicial record, not through secret telephone calls claiming authority from senior constitutional figures.

The court also noted Chandrasekhar’s alleged history of impersonating people in positions of authority and spoofing caller IDs, saying the incident demonstrated an attempt to make the judicial system respond to a fabricated authority.

It described impersonating a Supreme Court judge or the judge’s secretary to influence a pending case as an “act of institutional defiance”.

Delhi Police Investigation Criticised

While convicting Chandrasekhar, the court strongly criticised the Delhi Police investigation, calling it superficial and marked by serious lapses. Investigators failed to recover the mobile phone allegedly used in the incident, preserve CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, obtain crucial call records and promptly examine key witnesses, the court noted.

Questions were also raised over how Chandrasekhar managed to obtain access to a mobile phone while in police custody.

The court further directed senior police officials to examine the role of Constable Manjeet, saying the circumstances raised the possibility that he may have facilitated access to the phone. It clarified that this did not amount to a finding of guilt against the constable.

Court Says Evidence Proved Guilt

Despite the shortcomings in the police investigation, the court held that the available evidence established Chandrasekhar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected the argument that the absence of a voice recording undermined the prosecution case, pointing to the judicial officer’s testimony, call records and other corroborating evidence.

The court said the incident could not be dismissed as a prank because the alleged impersonation was used to seek a specific judicial outcome — Chandrasekhar’s release on bail. The conviction relates specifically to the 2017 telephone impersonation case and the IPC offences cited by the trial court.