New Delhi: A Delhi court has sentenced conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment for posing as a Supreme Court judge in an effort to influence bail proceedings in an ongoing criminal matter.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Tis Hazari Courts awarded Chandrasekhar two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a 5,000-rupee fine under IPC Section 170 for impersonating a public servant, two years and a 5,000-rupee fine under Section 189 for threatening injury to a public servant, and four years under Section 507 for criminal intimidation. In the sentencing order issued on August 29, the court ruled that all three substantive terms will run consecutively, while ordering an additional month of imprisonment in the event of default on the fines. Chandrasekhar had earlier been convicted under the three provisions on August 20.
The conviction relates to an incident on April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar made multiple phone calls to judicial officer Poonam Choudhary while mimicking a regional accent to impersonate a Supreme Court judge from South India. The court noted that the calls were made with the explicit purpose of securing bail in another criminal case, characterizing the deliberate appropriation of a constitutional post as an attack on the integrity and sanctity of the judicial system.
Rejecting the defense argument that failing to secure bail should serve as a mitigating factor, the court observed that an unsuccessful attempt does not render the act of impersonation harmless. The court also highlighted that Chandrasekhar displayed no genuine remorse during the trial and instead attempted to question the credibility of the complainant judge.
Emphasizing the necessity of a deterrent sentence to preserve public confidence in the judiciary, the court noted that technological advancements like voice spoofing, cloned audio, and deepfakes make such institutional impersonation increasingly dangerous. The court clarified that other pending cases against Chandrasekhar were not considered in the sentencing because they remain sub judice, and directed that he receive credit for the period already spent in custody.
