Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar moves Delhi HC

Alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar has moved the Delhi High Court against a trial court decision convicting him for impersonating a Supreme Court judge to influence a special judge for bail in a 2017 corruption case.

Chandrasekhar has sought the deletion of the “derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary observations” on his character in the trial court’s judgment. He has said in his plea that the trial court has repeatedly characterised 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 defence evidence, the plea has said.

The case arose from a phone call made on April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with the 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.

On August 20, the trial court held Chandrasekhar guilty of the offences under Indian Penal Code sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication), and described his crime as a “direct affront” to the independence and sanctity of the judicial process.

The trial court said Chandrasekhar had first impersonated the private secretary of a then Supreme Court judge and later, the judge himself.

It held that the prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Chandrasekhar had deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to interfere with the administration of justice.

“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,” the trial court said.

The trial judge said the case was qualitatively different from an ordinary cheating or impersonation matter as the alleged conduct sought to undermine judicial independence by using the authority of the country’s highest court to influence another judicial officer.