The Delhi Police on Monday challenged the maintainability of a petition moved by Sukesh Chandrasekhar before the Delhi High Court seeking to expunge critical remarks made against his character in a trial court judgment convicting him of impersonating a Supreme Court judge.
Justice Madhu Jain scheduled the matter for November 3 to hear arguments on the maintainability of the petition.
Maintainability Challenge Raised by Police
During the hearing, counsel representing the Delhi Police argued that Chandrasekhar’s petition is legally untenable in its current form. The prosecution submitted that because the trial court has already concluded proceedings and handed down a formal sentencing order, the petitioner ought to file a regular statutory appeal challenging his conviction and sentence rather than a standalone plea against specific observations.
Petitioner Cites Prejudice in Other Pending Cases
Appearing for Chandrasekhar, his counsel told the High Court that expunging the trial judge’s remarks was critical to protecting his legal rights. The defence argued that the judgment contained pejorative, stigmatic, and unnecessary characterisations that were irrelevant to the adjudication of the case and threatened to bias proceedings in other pending matters against him.
The petition further alleged that the trial court approached the matter with a predetermined and adverse mindset, denying Chandrasekhar adequate opportunity to conclude his defence evidence, and adjudicated the matter based on assumed character rather than objective evidence.
Conviction and Eight-Year Sentence
On August 20, the trial court convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170 (impersonating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to public servant), and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.
In its sentencing decision, the trial court observed that criminal penalties must draw a clear line between isolated violations and calculated campaigns intended to intimidate or manipulate public institutions. The trial judge characterised the conduct as a direct affront to the integrity of the judicial process, stating that the law does not permit access to justice through manufactured authority or impersonation.
Origins of the 2017 Impersonation Case
The case dates back to April 28, 2017, when Chandrasekhar was held in police custody in connection with a corruption matter. According to the prosecution, he obtained the mobile phone of a police constable, Manjeet, and placed calls to the official landline and mobile number of Poonam Chaudhary, who was then serving as a special judge presiding over Prevention of Corruption Act matters.
During those calls, Chandrasekhar initially posed as the private secretary to a Supreme Court judge before directly claiming to be the apex court judge in an attempt to secure bail. The trial court concluded that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately assumed the identity of a sitting Supreme Court judge to influence the judiciary.
