A Delhi court has sentenced Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment for impersonating a Supreme Court judge and attempting to influence a bail proceeding in another criminal case. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court passed the order, sentencing Chandrasekhar to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 189, and four years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 507. The court directed that all three substantive sentences run consecutively, bringing the total jail term to eight years. In case of default in payment of the fines, Chandrasekhar will undergo an additional month’s imprisonment.

Background and Conviction

The court had on August 20 convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170, 189, and 507 of the IPC, which deal with impersonation and threat. The case arose from a phone call made on April 28, 2017, while Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case. According to the prosecution, he obtained access to the mobile phone of police constable Manjeet and used it to contact the official landline and mobile phone of Poonam Chaudhary, then a special judge dealing with Prevention of Corruption Act cases.

According to the sentencing order, Chandrasekhar made multiple calls to judicial officer Poonam Choudhary while impersonating a Supreme Court judge from South India and using a regional accent to make the impersonation appear credible. The court said the objective was to influence a judicial proceeding concerning Chandrasekhar’s liberty in another criminal case, describing the conduct as an attack on the sanctity and integrity of the judicial process. Detailing his conduct, the trial court said Chandrasekhar had first impersonated the private secretary of a then-Supreme Court judge, and later the judge himself.

Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected the argument that his failure to deceive the judicial officer or secure bail should be treated as a mitigating circumstance, saying the unsuccessful attempt did not make the act of impersonation innocuous. It also noted that Chandrasekhar did not demonstrate genuine remorse or contrition during the trial and instead questioned the credibility of the complainant judicial officer. The court said the case was particularly concerning in the present technological environment, where deepfakes, AI-generated audio-visual material, cloned voices, and spoofed communications could make impersonation of constitutional authorities increasingly sophisticated.

In its order, the court said, “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.” It added, “The choice of the person impersonated was therefore not accidental,” observing that Chandrasekhar deliberately sought to appropriate the credibility attached to a constitutional post. The court also said, “The sentence in the present case must necessarily carry a deterrent message,” stressing the need to protect public confidence in the justice system.

The trial judge emphasized that the case was qualitatively different from an ordinary cheating or impersonation matter. The alleged conduct, she noted, sought to undermine judicial independence by using the authority of the country’s highest court to influence another judicial officer. “A courtroom may be entered through its doors, but justice cannot be entered through the back door of impersonation, intimidation or manufactured authority. The accused attempted precisely such a backdoor entry into the judicial process. The evidence has closed that door,” Judge Mishra said.

The court also considered a list of criminal cases pending against Chandrasekhar but said those cases, being sub judice and not resulting in convictions, could not be taken into account while deciding his sentence. The court directed that Chandrasekhar be given the benefit of the period already undergone in custody.

Appeal in Delhi High Court

Sukesh Chandrasekhar has moved the Delhi High Court against the trial court’s decision convicting him and has sought deletion of the “derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary observations” on his character in the judgment. He has said in his plea that the trial court has repeatedly characterized him in terms that are “wholly unnecessary for adjudication.” Chandrasekhar has asserted that the trial court’s judgment is contrary to the fundamental requirement that a case must be adjudicated upon evidence and not on an assumed character of the accused. The trial court approached the case with a “predetermined and adverse mindset” and denied him the opportunity to complete defense evidence, the plea has said.