Delhi HC To Hear On Nov 3 Maintainability Of Sukesh Chandrasekhar’s Plea Against ‘Derogatory’ Remarks In Conviction Verdict
Sukesh presses challenge to derogatory remarks in judgment; State says appeal is the appropriate remedy. Court to heard matter on November 3
The Delhi High Court on Monday fixed November 3, 2026, to hear arguments on the maintainability of a petition filed by Sukesh Chander Shekhar challenging remarks made about him in a trial court judgment convicting him in a Supreme Court judge impersonation case.
The development came after Shekhar’s counsel clarified that he was not pressing Prayer A, which sought setting aside of the trial court judgment, but was pressing the remaining prayers, including those seeking relief against what the petition describes as “derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary” observations about his character.
The petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Sukesh drops prayer challenging judgment
During Monday’s hearing, Shekhar’s counsel told the Court that Prayer A was not being pressed. The Court recorded: “Counsel for the petition submits that at present he is not pressing his prayer clause A.”
Counsel nevertheless argued that the remaining prayers could independently be considered by the High Court. He submitted that Shekhar has other cases and that the remarks made in the judgment could have implications in those matters as well.
The State opposed the maintainability of the petition, arguing that after the petitioner’s conviction and sentencing, the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal.
The State further contended that allowing the remaining prayers to proceed would effectively bifurcate the challenge to the same judgment, as the issues could also be raised before the appellate court.
The High Court, therefore, did not examine the merits of the allegations concerning the remarks and directed: “List for arguments on the maintainability of the present petition on 3rd November.”
Petition follows conviction in 2017 impersonation case
On August 20, Shekhar was convicted in the 2017 case concerning allegations that he impersonated a Supreme Court judge to influence a judicial officer in connection with a bail matter.
The trial court convicted him under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the IPC in FIR No. 100/2017 registered at Subzi Mandi police station.
According to the prosecution case, while Shekhar was in custody in another corruption case, he obtained access to a police constable’s mobile phone and used it to call then Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary. The trial court found that the caller first posed as the private secretary of a Supreme Court judge and later as the judge himself, seeking to influence the judicial officer regarding bail.
‘Prejudgment’ allegation
Shekhar’s writ petition had alleged that the trial proceedings were affected by “prejudgment”. It referred to the final arguments on August 17, when the trial court allegedly told his counsel that the submissions “will not lead to you to acquittal” and “I will not acquit on this basis.”
The petition emphasised that Shekhar approached the High Court before the judgment was pronounced and therefore, according to him, the allegation of prejudgment could not simply be treated as a response to the subsequent conviction.
Challenge to ‘conman’ remarks
The petition also takes issue with the language used in the trial court judgment. Shekhar has objected to references describing him as a “conman” and “seasoned conman”, including the observation: “A seasoned conman does not require a telephone directory to commit an offence.”
The petition argues that such descriptions went beyond the evidence and amounted to unnecessary and stigmatic observations concerning his character.
It relies on a 2022 order in another case involving Shekhar, in which the court stressed that there should be no “prejudice or predetermined description” of an accused facing trial.
Defence evidence and investigation also challenged
The petition had also questioned the manner in which Shekhar’s defence evidence was closed. After the prosecution examined 16 witnesses between February 2019 and April 2026, Shekhar was permitted to lead defence evidence. His wife, Leena Paulose, was examined, while two other proposed witnesses could not be served.
The trial court declined a further opportunity on July 9, citing the age of the case and a revision against that order was dismissed on July 17.
The petition also pointed to the absence of recovery of the mobile handset and SIM allegedly used for the calls and the absence of a voice recording.
The trial court, however, relied on call detail records, testimony of police personnel who stated that they had seen Shekhar using the phone, and the evidence of the judicial officer, holding that these circumstances formed a corroborated chain of evidence.
The trial court acknowledged certain investigative lapses, including the failure to recover the phone and SIM and examine some witnesses, but found that these shortcomings did not undermine the prosecution case.
High Court first to decide maintainability
The writ petition had sought to have the conviction judgment set aside, along with a fresh hearing of final arguments before another court, besides expunction of the disputed remarks.
With Shekhar now not pressing Prayer A, the immediate issue before the High Court is narrower: whether the surviving prayers, particularly those concerning the remarks in the judgment, can be entertained in writ jurisdiction after conviction and sentencing. The matter will next be heard on November 3, 2026.
Case Title: Sukesh Chander Shekhar @ Sukesh v. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain
Hearing Date: August 31, 2026
Next Story