Delhi court sentences Sukesh Chandrasekhar to 8 years in jail

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 found Chandrasekhar guilty under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation through anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On August 29, the judge imposed 2 years' rigorous imprisonment each for the offences under Sections 170 and 189, and 4 years under Section 507, directing that the sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently.

"The sentence must reflect that the criminal justice system distinguishes between an isolated unlawful act and a deliberate sequence of acts designed to manipulate, intimidate or interfere with the lawful functioning of public institutions. Where distinct criminal wrongs are deliberately committed, each substantial wrong must be adequately reflected in the punishment. The deliberate, calculated and deceptive manner in which the offences were committed by the convict in this case warrants a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the attack upon the rule of law and the administration of justice. Accordingly, all substantive sentences are directed to run consecutively," the Court ordered.

It also rejected Chandrasekhar's plea for concurrent sentencing and leniency, noting that the convict showed no remorse and instead sought to cast aspersions on the complainant's and the trial court's credibility.

The case goes back to April 2017 when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case pending before special judge Poonam Chaudhary. According to the prosecution, he obtained access to the mobile phone of constable Manjeet and called the judge’s official landline and personal mobile number.

The caller first introduced himself as the personal secretary to a Supreme Court judge, identified in the judgment only by the initials “KJ”. Another person then came on the line, claimed to be the judge and said that he was calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium.

After this, the caller directed the judicial officer to release Chandrasekhar on bail or interim bail immediately. He allegedly threatened her with serious professional repercussions if she failed to comply.

The judge subsequently contacted the Supreme Court and spoke to the actual private secretary of the judge concerned. She was informed that no such call had been made and that the person named by the caller as the judge’s secretary did not work in the office.

While convicting Chandrasekhar on August 20, the Court described the incident as an “absurd theatrical production” through which Chandrasekhar attempted to manipulate an ongoing judicial proceeding.

“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.”

The trial court found Judge Chaudhary's testimony consistent and corroborated by call detail records and evidence showing that Chandrasekhar had 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.

The Court said Chandrasekhar appeared to have fallen victim to his own propaganda after allegedly spending years spoofing caller IDs and impersonating persons in authority.

“He operated under the dangerous belief that if a lie is only grand enough and uttered with sufficient audacity, the rule of law will simply bow its head and step aside. He forgot that impersonating a bureaucrat or a political broker is a transactional crime born of greed but impersonating a Supreme Court Judge or his Secretary, is an act of institutional defiance.”

The Court also strongly criticised the Delhi Police investigation. It described the investigation as superficial, shoddy and marked by apathy.

Investigators failed to recover the mobile phone, secure CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, collect important call records or promptly examine material witnesses. They also failed to probe how Chandrasekhar gained access to an apparently secured smartphone while in police custody, the Court underscored.

Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Yadav represented the State

Advocate Praveen Dabas appeared for Chandrasekhar.

[Read Judgment]