Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s Conviction For Impersonating SC Judge

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by Sukesh Chandrasekhar @ Sukash Chandrasekhar seeking a stay on his conviction by a Delhi court for impersonating a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India in a 2017 phone call aimed at pressuring a Special Judge to grant him bail.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Chandrasekhar before a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan, submitted that there was not a single conviction against his client in any of the other cases pending against him.

"There's not a single conviction against me. The trial court proceeds on an impression and keeps repeating that I am a seasoned criminal, a seasoned habitual offender, a conman, all along," he said.

He further submitted that around 31 trials were pending against Chandrasekhar and that the observations made by the trial court in its judgment went beyond the evidence on record.

"I have about 31 trials that are pending. Observations in the order of the convicting court are outside of the evidence which has been led. There is no material to show that even in any one of those cases I have been convicted, and that is the admitted position in the sentencing order also," he submitted.

Alam further argued that the trial court's judgment was replete with observations describing Chandrasekhar as a seasoned and hardened criminal, despite there being no conviction in the other cases.

He submitted that such observations could prejudice the pending trials and be treated as evidence of his client's bad character.

However, the Supreme Court refused to grant any relief.

Justice Pardiwala dictated the following order:

"Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. It goes without saying that all other trials shall proceed further in accordance with law on their own merits".

Chandrasekhar approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's October 16, 2026 decision dismissing his plea against a trial court order dated October 6, 2026. The trial court had rejected his application seeking a stay on his conviction dated August 20, 2026 and sentence dated August 29, 2026, pending the disposal of his appeal against the conviction.

Background

A Delhi court on August 20 convicted Chandrasekhar for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge to pressure a Special Judge into granting him bail in a 2017 corruption case. Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts held him guilty under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Sections 204, 224 and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023].

According to the prosecution, Chandrasekhar, who was then in police custody in connection with a corruption case registered under FIR No. 56/2017 at the Crime Branch police station, obtained access to the mobile phone of Constable Manjeet, the police official in whose custody he was.

He allegedly used the phone to call the official landline and mobile numbers of Poonam Chaudhary, the then Special Judge hearing his corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Chandrasekhar allegedly first impersonated the Private Secretary of a then-sitting Supreme Court judge and subsequently impersonated the judge himself. He purportedly attempted to persuade the judicial officer to grant him bail at the earliest, while threatening her with adverse professional consequences if she refused.

The FIR was registered at Subzi Mandi police station on April 29, 2017, a day after the alleged incident, and was subsequently transferred to the Crime Branch. The chargesheet was filed on April 20, 2018, and charges were framed on December 14, 2018.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses between February 2019 and April 2026. Chandrasekhar pleaded not guilty and also led defence evidence, including the testimony of his wife, Leena Paulose.

The trial court held that the ingredients of all three offences were established. It found that Chandrasekhar had impersonated a public servant, attempted to threaten a public servant by invoking the supposed authority of a superior constitutional court, and committed criminal intimidation through anonymous communication.

Court also directed the Delhi Police to re-examine the role of Constable Manjeet, observing that there was a possibility that he had facilitated Chandrasekhar's access to the mobile phone used to make the calls.

It directed the Commissioner of Police/DCP concerned to examine various aspects of Manjeet's role, including whether fresh departmental or criminal proceedings were warranted against him.

Case Title: Sukesh Chandrashekar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manmohan

Order Date: November 2, 2026