A Delhi court has sentenced conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar to 8 years’ imprisonment for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempting to pressure a judicial officer to get bail.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Court had earlier convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threatening injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code.
On August 29, the court sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 170 and 189, and four years under Section 507. The sentences will run consecutively, resulting in a total prison term of eight years.
Rejecting Chandrasekhar’s request for concurrent sentences and leniency, the court noted that he had shown no remorse and had instead questioned the credibility of the complainant and the trial court.
The court noted that the criminal justice system treats a deliberate pattern of intimidation and manipulation far more severely than a single unlawful act. It ruled that the calculated and deceptive nature of the offenses demanded a punishment proportionate to their gravity and the threat they posed to the rule of law.
The case dates back to April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case before special judge Poonam Chaudhary. Prosecutors said he gained access to constable Manjeet’s mobile phone and used it to call the judge’s official landline and personal number.
The caller initially claimed to be the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge, identified in the judgment only as “KJ”. Another person then came on the line, purported to be the judge, and claimed to be calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium. The caller allegedly instructed Judge Chaudhary to grant Chandrasekhar bail or interim bail immediately, threatening serious professional consequences if she did not comply.
Judge Chaudhary later verified the call with the Supreme Court and was informed by the actual private secretary of the concerned judge that no such communication had been made. The person named by the caller was also not employed in the judge’s office.
In its August 20 conviction order, the court described the episode as an “absurd theatrical production” intended to manipulate an ongoing judicial proceeding. It found Judge Chaudhary’s testimony reliable and supported by call-detail records and evidence that Chandrasekhar had access to the constable’s phone.
The court stressed that judicial decisions are made in courtrooms on the basis of the record, not through covert phone calls invoking positions of authority.
It also criticised the Delhi Police investigation as superficial and shoddy. Investigators failed to recover the phone, preserve CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, obtain key call records, promptly examine material witnesses, or investigate how Chandrasekhar accessed a secured smartphone while in custody.
The post Delhi Court hands Sukesh Chandrasekhar 8-year jail term for judge impersonation appeared first on India Legal.