A Delhi court has sentenced conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years in prison for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and allegedly attempting to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Court had earlier convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On August 29, the court awarded two years of rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 170 and 189, and four years under Section 507. The sentences have been directed to run consecutively, taking the total imprisonment to eight years.

The court rejected Chandrasekhar’s request for concurrent sentences and leniency, observing that he had shown no remorse and had instead attempted to question the credibility of the complainant as well as the trial court.

While ordering consecutive sentences, the court said the punishment must reflect the deliberate nature of Chandrasekhar’s actions and the impact they had on 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,” the court observed.

It said the “deliberate, calculated and deceptive” manner in which the offences were committed warranted punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the attack on the rule of law and administration of justice.

Accordingly, the court directed that all substantive sentences would run consecutively.

The case dates back to April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case pending before Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary.

According to the prosecution, Chandrasekhar obtained access to the mobile phone of a police constable, identified as Manjeet, and used it to contact the judicial officer.

The caller initially introduced himself as the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge, identified in the judgment only by the initials “KJ.”

A second person subsequently joined the call and claimed to be the Supreme Court judge himself. He allegedly stated that he was calling on behalf of the Union Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium.

The caller then directed Judge Chaudhary to release Chandrasekhar on bail or interim bail immediately and allegedly warned her of serious professional consequences if she failed to comply.

The judicial officer subsequently contacted the Supreme Court and spoke to the actual private secretary of the judge concerned. She was informed that no such call had been made and that the individual identified as the judge’s secretary did not work in the concerned office.

While convicting Chandrasekhar on August 20, the trial court described the entire episode as an “absurd theatrical production” aimed at manipulating an ongoing judicial proceeding.

“In this most absurd theatrical production of his, where he impersonated a sitting Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to manipulate an ongoing proceeding, he did not merely cross the line; he leapt over it into the realm of fatal institutional overreach,” the court observed.

The court found Judge Chaudhary’s testimony reliable and said it was corroborated by call-detail records and evidence establishing Chandrasekhar’s access to the constable’s mobile phone.

“Orders are passed in courtrooms, not dictated over clandestine telephone calls. Judicial discretion is exercised on the basis of the judicial record, not on the basis of the caller’s designation,” the court said.

The court further observed that Chandrasekhar appeared to have become a victim of the methods he had allegedly used over the years, including spoofing caller IDs and impersonating people in positions of authority.

It said he seemed to operate under the belief that a sufficiently grand lie, delivered with enough confidence, could make the rule of law “bow its head.”

The court drew a distinction between impersonating bureaucrats or political intermediaries and impersonating a Supreme Court judge or the judge’s secretary, terming the latter an act of “institutional defiance.”

The trial court also came down heavily on the Delhi Police investigation, describing it as superficial, shoddy and marked by apathy.

The investigators, the court noted, failed to recover the mobile phone allegedly used in the offence, secure CCTV footage from the Crime Branch premises, collect crucial call records or promptly examine important witnesses.

The court also criticised the failure to investigate how Chandrasekhar managed to gain access to an apparently secured smartphone while he was in police custody.

Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Yadav appeared for the State, while advocate Praveen Dabas represented Chandrasekhar.