Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar jailed for 8 years over impersonation of SC 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 awarded Chandrasekhar two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 170 of the IPC, another 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 the three substantive sentences would run consecutively, making the total jail term eight years. In case of non-payment of the fines, Chandrasekhar will have to undergo an additional month's imprisonment.

In its sentencing order dated August 29, made available on Sunday, the court said the punishment must distinguish between an isolated unlawful act and a deliberate series of actions intended to manipulate, intimidate or interfere with the functioning of public institutions.

"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 said.

The court had convicted Chandrasekhar on August 20 under IPC Sections 170, 189 and 507, which deal with impersonation and threats.

According to the sentencing order, Chandrasekhar made multiple calls on April 28, 2017, to judicial officer Poonam Choudhary while posing as a Supreme Court judge from South India. He also adopted a regional accent in an apparent attempt to make the impersonation appear genuine.

The calls were aimed at influencing 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 choice of the person impersonated was therefore not accidental," the court observed, adding that Chandrasekhar had deliberately sought to appropriate the credibility associated with a constitutional office.

The court rejected the defence argument that the judicial officer was not deceived and Chandrasekhar did not succeed in securing bail, saying the failure of the attempt could not make the impersonation harmless.

It also noted that Chandrasekhar had not shown genuine remorse or contrition during the trial and had instead questioned the credibility of the judicial officer who lodged the complaint.

The court said the case assumed particular significance in the present technological environment, where deepfakes, AI-generated audio and video, cloned voices and spoofed communications can make the impersonation of constitutional authorities increasingly sophisticated.

"The sentence in the present case must necessarily carry a deterrent message," the court said, emphasising the need to safeguard public confidence in the justice system.

While deciding the sentence, the court also took note of several criminal cases pending against Chandrasekhar. However, it said those matters were sub judice and had not resulted in convictions, and therefore could not be considered for determining his sentence in the present case.

The court directed that Chandrasekhar be given the benefit of the period he has already spent in custody.