The Tis Hazari Court, Delhi has sentenced Sukesh Chandrasekhar to a total of eight years’ rigorous imprisonment for impersonating a Supreme Court Judge and using the fabricated identity to influence a judicial proceeding and secure bail in another criminal case. The Court also imposed fines of ?5,000 each under Sections 170 and 189 of the IPC.
The Court had earlier convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the IPC, holding that his conduct went beyond ordinary impersonation and struck at the foundation of the judicial process. It noted that he had deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court Judge and made multiple calls to a Judicial Officer in an attempt to influence proceedings concerning his own liberty.
The Court treated the calculated nature of the impersonation, the attempt to influence the administration of justice, the potential impact on public confidence in the judiciary and the absence of genuine remorse as aggravating circumstances. It also observed that emerging technologies, including AI-generated voices, videos and other manipulated communications, could make such attempts increasingly sophisticated.
While the prosecution had relied upon Chandrasekhar’s pending criminal cases, the Court declined to take those cases into account for sentencing since he had not been convicted in them.
The Court noted that
“
“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. Where distinct criminal wrongs are deliberately committed, each substantial wrong must be adequately reflected in the punishment. The deliberate, calculated and deceptive manner in which the offences were committed by the convict in this case warrants a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the attack upon the rule of law and the administration of justice.”
The Court directed that the two-year sentences under Sections 170 and 189 and the four-year sentence under Section 507 run consecutively, holding that the offences protected distinct legal interests and that concurrent sentences would understate the criminality involved.