A Delhi Court has convicted alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court Judge to influence a special judge for bail in a corruption case in 2017, describing the act as a “direct affront” to the independence and sanctity of the judicial process.
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. He allegedly sought to persuade Chaudhary to grant bail to him 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 Court will hear him on the quantum of sentence on August 27. In an order dated August 20, 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. The case arose from a phone call made on April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with the corruption case.
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, according to the prosecution. The Court said Chandrasekhar first impersonated the private secretary of a then-sitting Supreme Court Judge and later the judge himself. The evidence has closed that door,” the Court said.
The Judge said the case was qualitatively different from an ordinary cheating or impersonation matter, as the alleged conduct sought to undermine judicial independence by using the authority of the country’s highest court to influence another judicial officer.
