A Delhi court has convicted conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar of impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempting to pressure a judicial officer in a bid to get bail..Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts 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.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.”.In April 2017, 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 he was calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium..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..The trial court found her 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 added that Chandrasekhar wrongly believed that the authority of the Supreme Court could be hijacked through a telephone call.“He assumed the judiciary would respond with the same quiet compliance as his other corporate targets. What Sukesh failed to calculate in his risk assessment is that the judiciary does not negotiate its authority with shadow callers. In attempting to flex non-existent judicial muscles from behind a phone screen, he overplayed his hand so completely that he collapsed his own house of cards.”.However, the Court 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.“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.”.The Court said the circumstances raised the possibility that Constable Manjeet was not merely a victim whose phone had been misused, but may have facilitated Chandrasekhar’s access to it. It clarified that this was not a finding of guilt against the constable.“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 Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned was directed to re-examine the constable’s role and determine whether fresh departmental or criminal proceedings were warranted..Despite the investigative lapses, the Court held that the remaining evidence proved Chandrasekhar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.“A courtroom may be entered through its doors, but justice cannot be entered through the backdoor of impersonation, intimidation or manufactured authority. The accused attempted precisely such a backdoor entry into the judicial process. The evidence has closed that door.”.Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Yadav represented the State.Advocate Praveen Dabas appeared for Chandrasekhar..[Read Judgment]
