‘Orders passed in courtrooms not through...’: Delhi court finds Sukesh Chandrasekhar guilty of impersonating SC Judge to seek bail
The court said the alleged conduct represented an attempt to undermine judicial independence and ensure that a case was influenced through private communication rather than law and evidence
- Aug 27, 2026,
- Updated Aug 27, 2026 3:31 PM IST
A Delhi court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempting to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail in a 2017 corruption case. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts delivered the verdict in a detailed 121-page order, describing the conduct as an attack on the integrity and independence of the judicial process, according to news agency PTI.
An attack on Judicial Process
According to the court, Chandrasekhar, while in custody, allegedly obtained access to a mobile phone belonging to a constable and used it to contact the judicial officer handling his corruption case. He allegedly first posed as the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge and later impersonated the judge himself, seeking an early bail order and allegedly warning the judicial officer of professional consequences.
CJM Mishra observed that the case went beyond ordinary cheating or impersonation. The court said the alleged conduct represented an attempt to undermine judicial independence and ensure that a case was influenced through private communication rather than law and evidence.
The judge observed that “orders are passed in courtrooms” and not through clandestine telephone calls, stressing that judicial discretion must be exercised based on the judicial record rather than the identity claimed by a caller.
DON'T MISS: All about Baikuntha Nath Behera, Odisha assistant engineer at the centre of a ₹2 crore cash haul
‘Institutional Defiance’, Says Court
The court sharply criticised the alleged attempt to borrow the authority of the Supreme Court to influence a lower-court proceeding. It said impersonating a Supreme Court judge or the judge’s secretary was not merely a transactional act motivated by personal gain but an act of “institutional defiance.”
The court further said that allowing such conduct to succeed could create an invisible parallel system of justice operating through telephone calls, instructions and impersonation instead of courtrooms and evidence.
The judge also rejected the defence argument questioning the judicial officer’s complaint and testimony. The court found her evidence consistent, credible and supported by contemporaneous records. It noted that she had verified the alleged communication with the Supreme Court before formally approaching authorities.
The court also rejected the argument that the judicial officer’s telephone number could not have been obtained unless it was publicly available. It observed that “telephone numbers of judicial officers are not necessarily secrets”, adding that a sophisticated offender could obtain such information through ingenuity and intent.
ALSO READ: ACB arrests Satyendar Jain, 5 others in Jal Board scam: What is the case
Court criticises police investigation
While convicting Chandrasekhar, the court expressed serious dissatisfaction with the investigation. It described the probe as marked by “appalling apathy and tardiness”, pointing to delays in recording statements and failures to collect potentially important evidence.
The court said investigators failed to properly examine relevant witnesses, collect certain call records, secure CCTV footage and recover the phone and SIM allegedly used for the calls. It also directed attention to questions surrounding how the mobile phone became available to Chandrasekhar while he was in custody.
(With agency inputs)
A Delhi court has convicted Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempting to pressure a judicial officer into granting him bail in a 2017 corruption case. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts delivered the verdict in a detailed 121-page order, describing the conduct as an attack on the integrity and independence of the judicial process, according to news agency PTI.
An attack on Judicial Process
According to the court, Chandrasekhar, while in custody, allegedly obtained access to a mobile phone belonging to a constable and used it to contact the judicial officer handling his corruption case. He allegedly first posed as the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge and later impersonated the judge himself, seeking an early bail order and allegedly warning the judicial officer of professional consequences.
CJM Mishra observed that the case went beyond ordinary cheating or impersonation. The court said the alleged conduct represented an attempt to undermine judicial independence and ensure that a case was influenced through private communication rather than law and evidence.
The judge observed that “orders are passed in courtrooms” and not through clandestine telephone calls, stressing that judicial discretion must be exercised based on the judicial record rather than the identity claimed by a caller.
DON'T MISS: All about Baikuntha Nath Behera, Odisha assistant engineer at the centre of a ₹2 crore cash haul
‘Institutional Defiance’, Says Court
The court sharply criticised the alleged attempt to borrow the authority of the Supreme Court to influence a lower-court proceeding. It said impersonating a Supreme Court judge or the judge’s secretary was not merely a transactional act motivated by personal gain but an act of “institutional defiance.”
The court further said that allowing such conduct to succeed could create an invisible parallel system of justice operating through telephone calls, instructions and impersonation instead of courtrooms and evidence.
The judge also rejected the defence argument questioning the judicial officer’s complaint and testimony. The court found her evidence consistent, credible and supported by contemporaneous records. It noted that she had verified the alleged communication with the Supreme Court before formally approaching authorities.
The court also rejected the argument that the judicial officer’s telephone number could not have been obtained unless it was publicly available. It observed that “telephone numbers of judicial officers are not necessarily secrets”, adding that a sophisticated offender could obtain such information through ingenuity and intent.
ALSO READ: ACB arrests Satyendar Jain, 5 others in Jal Board scam: What is the case
Court criticises police investigation
While convicting Chandrasekhar, the court expressed serious dissatisfaction with the investigation. It described the probe as marked by “appalling apathy and tardiness”, pointing to delays in recording statements and failures to collect potentially important evidence.
The court said investigators failed to properly examine relevant witnesses, collect certain call records, secure CCTV footage and recover the phone and SIM allegedly used for the calls. It also directed attention to questions surrounding how the mobile phone became available to Chandrasekhar while he was in custody.
(With agency inputs)