Chandrasekhar allegedly used a constable’s phone to threaten the trial judge and direct her to release him on bail.
The court also criticised Delhi Police for a “superficial and shoddy” investigation, noting that the phone used in the offence was never recovered.
Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar Convicted For Impersonating SC Judge To Secure Bail
A Delhi court convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a Supreme Court judge and threatening a trial judge to secure bail in 2017
Summary
A Delhi court has convicted conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a Supreme Court judge to secure bail in a 2017 corruption case.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts handed down the conviction. The court found Chandrasekhar guilty under Indian Penal Code Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication), reported Bar and Bench.
"In this most absurd theatrical production of his, where he impersonated a sitting Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to manipulate an ongoing proceeding, he did not merely cross the line; he leapt over it into the realm of fatal institutional overreach," Mishra said.
The Audacious Bail Ruse
The impersonation attempt occurred in April 2017 while Chandrasekhar was in police custody. He used a constable's mobile phone to call Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary's official landline and personal phone number. Chaudhary was presiding over his pending corruption case at the time.
A caller first claimed to be the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge. Another person then claimed to be the Supreme Court judge himself, asserting he was calling on behalf of the Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium.
The fake judge ordered Chaudhary to release Chandrasekhar on bail immediately and threatened her with professional repercussions if she refused. Chaudhary flagged the call with the Supreme Court, which confirmed that no such call had been made.
"Orders are passed in courtrooms, not dictated over clandestine telephone calls. Judicial discretion is exercised on the basis of the judicial record, not on the basis of the caller’s designation," the trial court stated.
The court also observed that Chandrasekhar overplayed his hand by trying to use his history of spoofing caller IDs for his advantage. "What Sukesh failed to calculate in his risk assessment is that the judiciary does not negotiate its authority with shadow callers," the court stated, as reported by Bar and Bench.
Advertisement
Police Investigation Slammed
The court strongly reprimanded the Delhi Police during the hearing, criticising them for their "superficial and shoddy" investigation into how Chandrasekhar could orchestrate the failed impersonation.
The police failed to recover the mobile phone used or determine how Chandrasekhar obtained a constable's phone while in custody.
The trial court stated that the police dealt with the matter "with utter indifference, investigative naivete and apathy".
Published At: