Delhi Court Delivers Verdict on Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s Fraud Case
In a significant ruling, a Delhi court sentenced Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment following his conviction for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge. This remarkable case involved Chandrasekhar’s attempt to manipulate a judicial officer to secure bail.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra, presiding at the Tis Hazari Court, found Chandrasekhar guilty of offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 170 for impersonating a public servant, Section 189 for threatening a public servant, and Section 507 for criminal intimidation via anonymous communication.
On August 29, the court handed down sentences of two years for each of the offences under Sections 170 and 189, and four years for Section 507. Crucially, these sentences are to be served consecutively, underscoring the court’s stance on the grave nature of these offences. The court emphasized that the punishment should reflect the calculated and deceitful manner in which the crimes were executed, ultimately posing a threat to the rule of law and the judicial process.
Case Background and Court’s Observations
The case dates back to April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was detained in connection with a corruption case before Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary. During this time, Chandrasekhar managed to access a mobile phone belonging to Constable Manjeet. He used this phone to call the judge’s official landline and personal mobile number.
Introducing himself as the personal secretary to a Supreme Court judge, identified only by the initials “KJ” in court documents, Chandrasekhar, along with another accomplice posing as the judge, pressured the judicial officer to grant him bail. They falsely claimed to be acting on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium, further threatening the judge with severe professional consequences for non-compliance.
More Read
Judicial Response and Criticism of the Investigation
The court described Chandrasekhar’s actions as “an absurd theatrical production” aimed at subverting an ongoing judicial proceeding. The court noted that the attempt to impersonate a Supreme Court judge crossed a critical line into “fatal institutional overreach.”
Judge Chaudhary’s testimony, supported by call records and evidence of Chandrasekhar’s access to the constable’s phone, was found consistent and credible. The court emphasized the importance of judicial decisions being made in courtrooms, not manipulated through illicit calls.
The ruling also contained strong criticism of the Delhi Police investigation, labeling it superficial and marked by apathy. The investigation failed to recover critical evidence such as the mobile phone used in the crime, CCTV footage, and call records, and did not thoroughly examine key witnesses or investigate how Chandrasekhar accessed the phone while in custody.
More Read
Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Yadav represented the State, while Advocate Praveen Dabas defended Chandrasekhar.
