The Tis Hazari Court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a Supreme Court Judge and attempting to influence a judicial officer to secure bail, holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts.
The case dates back to April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in another corruption case. According to the prosecution, he obtained access to a police constable’s mobile phone and used it to contact the official landline and mobile number of the then Special Judge who was dealing with the corruption case against him. He allegedly first posed as the Personal Secretary of a sitting Supreme Court Judge and subsequently as the Judge himself.
The caller allegedly told the judicial officer that he was calling on behalf of the Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium and directed her to release Chandrasekhar on bail immediately. He also allegedly warned her of serious professional consequences if she failed to do so. The judge, after contacting the concerned Supreme Court Judge’s office, learnt that the call was a hoax and that no such person was working as the Judge’s Secretary.
The Court found that the impersonation was not incidental but was the very means used to influence the judicial officer. It held that the prosecution had established the ingredients of Sections 170, 189 and 507 IPC, impersonation of a public servant, attempting to induce a public servant to exercise his or her authority in a particular manner, and anonymous communication.
The Court rejected the defence case that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused’s involvement, holding that the evidence formed a “coherent and mutually reinforcing chain” pointing towards his guilt. It particularly noted that there was no reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that could explain the entire course of conduct.
The judgment strongly criticised the attempt to use the authority of the Supreme Court to interfere with judicial proceedings. The Court observed that impersonating a Supreme Court Judge amounted to appropriating the authority and institutional credibility of the judicial system in an attempt to obtain a favourable judicial outcome.
“
“The Supreme Court of India is not merely another public office. It represents the constitutional promise of justice and occupies a position at the summit of the judicial hierarchy. To impersonate a Judge of that Court is therefore not merely to misrepresent one’s identity; it is to appropriate, even if momentarily, the authority and institutional credibility of the judicial system.”
The Court ultimately convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170, 189 and 507 IPC. The matter has been listed for hearing on the question of sentence on August 27, 2026
