A Delhi court has found Sukesh Chandrasekhar guilty of impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge in an attempt to secure bail in a 2017 corruption case. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts delivered the detailed 121-page verdict, describing Chandrasekhar's conduct as a direct assault on the independence and integrity of the judicial process.
Undermining Judicial Independence
While in custody, Chandrasekhar reportedly obtained access to a mobile phone belonging to a constable. He then used this device to contact the judicial officer overseeing his corruption case. He initially posed as the private secretary to a Supreme Court judge and subsequently impersonated the judge himself, demanding an expedited bail order and allegedly threatening the judicial officer with professional repercussions.
CJM Mishra emphasized that this case transcended typical impersonation or cheating. The court stated that Chandrasekhar's actions represented a deliberate attempt to subvert judicial independence and influence a legal proceeding through private communication, rather than through established legal procedures and evidence.
“Orders are passed in courtrooms,” the judge observed, “and not through clandestine telephone calls.” She stressed that judicial discretion must be exercised solely based on the judicial record, not on the purported identity of a caller.
An Act of Institutional Defiance
The court sharply criticized the attempt to leverage the authority of the Supreme Court to influence a lower-court proceeding. It characterized the impersonation of a Supreme Court judge or their secretary as more than just a transactional act driven by personal gain; it was an act of “institutional defiance.”
Allowing such conduct to succeed, the court warned, could foster an invisible parallel justice system operating through phone calls and instructions instead of transparent courtrooms and evidence. The court also dismissed the defense's challenge to the judicial officer’s complaint and testimony, finding her evidence consistent, credible, and corroborated by contemporaneous records. It was noted that she had verified the alleged communication with the Supreme Court before formally reporting the incident.
Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the judicial officer’s telephone number would be unobtainable, noting that “telephone numbers of judicial officers are not necessarily secrets” and could be acquired by a sophisticated offender.
Criticism of the Police Investigation
Despite the conviction, the court expressed significant dissatisfaction with the police investigation, describing it as marred by “appalling apathy and tardiness.” The court pointed to substantial delays in recording statements and critical failures to collect potentially vital evidence.
Investigators were criticized for not properly examining relevant witnesses, failing to secure certain call records and CCTV footage, and neglecting to recover the mobile phone and SIM card allegedly used by Chandrasekhar while in custody.