Delhi Court Sentences Sukesh Chandrasekhar to Eight Years for Impersonating Supreme Court Judge
A Delhi court has sentenced conman 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 Tis Hazari Courts handed down the sentence on August 29, as reported by multiple sources.
The Sentence and Charges
The court sentenced Chandrasekhar to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code (personating a public servant), another two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 189 (threat of injury to public servant), and four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication). The court directed that all three substantive sentences would run consecutively, taking the total jail term to eight years. In case of default in payment of the fines, Chandrasekhar will undergo an additional month's imprisonment, as stated by the court in its order.
The court had earlier convicted Chandrasekhar on August 20 under the same sections dealing with impersonation and threat, according to reports. The sentence was handed down in an order dated August 29, which was made available on Monday, as reported by some sources.
The Offence and Court's Reasoning
According to the sentencing order, Chandrasekhar made multiple calls on April 28, 2017, to judicial officer Poonam Choudhary, impersonating a Supreme Court judge from South India and adopting a regional accent to make the ruse appear credible. The objective was to influence a judicial proceeding concerning Chandrasekhar's liberty in another criminal case, the court said, describing the conduct as an attack on the sanctity and integrity of the judicial process.
The court observed that Chandrasekhar deliberately sought to appropriate the credibility attached to a constitutional post, adding, "The choice of the person impersonated was therefore not accidental." The court rejected the argument that the 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.
In its order, the court stated, "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." The court also noted that Chandrasekhar did not demonstrate genuine remorse or contrition during the trial and instead questioned the credibility of the complainant judicial officer. It further observed that the sentence in the present case must necessarily carry a deterrent message, stressing the need to protect public confidence in the justice system.
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. It directed that Chandrasekhar be given the benefit of the period already undergone in custody.
Technological Concerns
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. This observation underscored the broader implications of the case for the integrity of judicial processes.
Case Background and Proceedings
According to one report, the case dates to April 24, 2017, when special judge Poonam Choudhary received a call at her chamber's landline. The caller identified himself as the PA to Supreme Court judge 'KJ' and later as justice 'KJ', threatening the judge with professional consequences if she failed to grant bail to Sukesh. A case was lodged under IPC sections 170, 189, 507, and 34 on April 29, 2017. The charge sheet was filed on April 20, 2018, and the trial started in February 2019, as per that report.
The court also directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to re-examine the role of Constable Manjeet, setting October 1 as the date for compliance regarding the constable, according to the same report. These procedural details were carried by a single outlet among those reviewed.