New Delhi: A court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar of attempting to interfere with the judicial process by impersonating a Supreme Court judge and his secretary, and pressuring special judge Poonam Chaudhary to grant him immediate release while he was in police custody in a corruption case.
The case arose from an April 28, 2017, incident when Sukesh used constable Manjeet’s phone to call special judge Chaudhary.
Impersonating a Supreme Court judge and his secretary, he sought immediate bail and threatened her with “serious professional repercussions” if she did not comply with. The court said Sukesh’s conduct went beyond cheating, describing it as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Calling out Sukesh’s tactics, the court said, “Orders are passed in courtrooms, not dictated over clandestine telephone calls. Reflecting on the modus operandi, the court said Sukesh’s previous success in deceiving private individuals appeared to have led him to miscalculate when he targeted the judiciary.
Chaudhary contacted Supreme Court and spoke to the actual private secretary of the judge concerned. She was informed that no such call was made and the person named as the judge’s secretary did not work in the office. Judicial discretion is exercised on the basis of the judicial record, not on the basis of the caller’s designation. “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 directed the commissioner of Delhi Police or the deputy commissioner of police concerned to re-examine the constable’s role and determine whether fresh departmental or criminal proceedings were warranted.
Noting investigative lapses, including the failure to recover the mobile phone or seize CCTV footage, the court criticised Delhi Police ’s “indifferent approach” to the investigation. However, it found the evidence sufficient to establish an “unbroken chain of proof”. The court relied on electronic records and witness testimony to decide the case.