‘Absurd theatrical production’: Sukesh Chandrasekhar convicted for posing as SC judge to get bail

Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar has been convicted by a Delhi court for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and allegedly attempting to influence a judicial officer to secure bail.

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

‘Absurd theatrical production’

The case dates back to April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case before special judge Poonam Chaudhary.

According to the prosecution, he gained access to the mobile phone of Constable Manjeet and used it to contact the judge’s official landline and personal mobile number.

The caller initially claimed to be the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge identified in the judgment by the initials “KJ”. Another person then allegedly posed as the judge and claimed to be calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and Supreme Court Collegium.

The caller directed the judicial officer to grant Chandrasekhar bail or interim bail and allegedly warned her of serious professional consequences if she refused.

The trial court described the episode as an “absurd theatrical production”.

“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.”

Judge verified call with Supreme Court

The judicial officer later contacted the Supreme Court and spoke to the actual private secretary of the judge concerned. She was told that no such call had been made and that the person identified as the secretary did not work in the judge’s office.

The court found her testimony consistent and supported by call detail records and evidence establishing Chandrasekhar’s access to the constable’s phone.

“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 court said.

Court pulls up Delhi Police

While finding Chandrasekhar guilty, the court strongly criticised the police investigation, calling it superficial and marked by “investigative naivete and apathy”.

Investigators failed to recover the phone, obtain CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, collect key call records or promptly examine important witnesses. The court also questioned why the investigation did not establish how Chandrasekhar obtained access to a supposedly secured phone while in custody.

“While a seasoned conman has gone to extraordinary lengths to subvert the judicial process by weaponizing modern technology to impersonate a constitutional authority to get a favourable verdict, the Delhi Police has investigated the matter with utter indifference, investigative naivete and apathy.”

Constable’s role to be re-examined

The court said the circumstances warranted a closer examination of Constable Manjeet’s role, while making clear that it was not recording any finding of guilt against him.

“An investigation must follow the evidence wherever it leads, even when that evidence could have led towards a member of the Delhi Police. The police cannot be permitted to investigate an allegation against one of its own personnel with a lower degree of scrutiny merely because doing so is administratively inconvenient or institutionally embarrassing. The police uniform cannot become a shield against investigation.”

The police commissioner or concerned deputy commissioner has been directed to examine whether fresh departmental or criminal proceedings are warranted.

Despite the investigation lapses, the court held that the evidence against Chandrasekhar established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.