A Delhi court has convicted alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge in an attempt to influence a special judge to grant him bail in a corruption case in 2017.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra held Chandrasekhar guilty of offences under IPC Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication).
The court will hear arguments on the quantum of sentence on 27 August.
In an order dated 20 August, the court said, "The present case shall for posterity remain a reminder that the majesty of law does not reside in the voice of an individual, however authoritative it may sound over a telephone, but in the integrity of the judicial process itself."
How the case unfolded
The case relates to a phone call made on 28 April 2017, when Sukesh 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 special judge dealing with Prevention of Corruption Act cases.
The court said Chandrasekhar first impersonated the private secretary of a then sitting SC judge and later the judge himself. He allegedly sought to persuade Chaudhary to grant him bail at the earliest and threatened her with adverse professional consequences if she did not comply.
"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 court said.
The judge said the case was qualitatively different from an ordinary cheating or impersonation matter because the alleged conduct sought to undermine judicial independence by using the authority of the country's highest court to influence another judicial officer.
"The court also finds it necessary to record that the conduct of the accused constitutes a direct affront to the independence and sanctity of the judicial process. Courts decide cases on the basis of law and evidence, not on the basis of telephone calls purporting to emanate from persons occupying positions of authority," the judge said.
Court says prosecution proved impersonation
The court said the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Chandrasekhar deliberately assumed the identity of a Supreme Court judge to interfere with the administration of justice.
"The accused sought to use that borrowed authority not for any legitimate purpose, but to procure a judicial outcome favourable to himself. The brazenness of the attempt cannot dilute the offence; rather, it demonstrates the deliberateness with which the criminal design was executed," the judge said.
It held that the impersonation was not incidental but "the very instrument" used to achieve his unlawful objective, as he understood that the words of a Supreme Court judge would carry an authority his own identity could not command.
The court also found the ingredients of IPC Section 189 (threat of injury to public servant) made out, saying that the accused attempted to induce a judicial officer to exercise her discretion in a particular manner by invoking the supposed authority of a superior constitutional court.
It further held that the anonymous nature of the communication attracted IPC Section 507 (criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication).
Calling the conduct a direct affront to the judicial process, the court said permitting such attempts to pass as mere deception could embolden people to circumvent courtrooms by manufacturing authority outside them. "The judicial process cannot be allowed to become vulnerable to such manufactured commands," it said.
The court, however, also directed Delhi Police to re-examine the role of constable Manjeet, including how Chandrasekhar obtained access to his mobile phone, whether it was locked, who knew its password and why the alleged use of the phone was not promptly reported.
(With inputs from PTI)
