Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar sentenced to 8 years in prison for impersonating Supreme Court judge

The court had on August 20 convicted Chandrasekhar under sections 170, 189 and 507 of the IPC, dealing with impersonation and threat.

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court sentenced conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar to eight years of rigorous imprisonment for impersonating a Supreme Court judge and attempting to influence a bail proceeding in another criminal case.

Chief judicial magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari courts sentenced Chandrasekhar to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs 5,000 under IPC Section 170, two years' rigorous imprisonment and fined him Rs 5,000 under Section 189, and four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 507.

In an order dated August 29, which was made available on Sunday, the court said, "The sentence must reflect that the criminal justice system distinguishes between an isolated unlawful act and a deliberate sequence of acts designed to manipulate, intimidate or interfere with the lawful functioning of public institutions."

The court directed that all three substantive sentences would run consecutively, taking the total jail term to eight years. In case of default in payment of the fines, Chandrasekhar will undergo an additional month's imprisonment.

The court had on August 20 convicted Chandrasekhar under sections 170, 189 and 507 of the IPC, dealing with impersonation and threat.

According to the sentencing order, Chandrasekhar made multiple calls on April 28, 2017, to judicial officer Poonam Choudhary while impersonating a Supreme Court judge from South India and using a regional accent to make the impersonation appear credible.

The court said the objective was to influence a judicial proceeding concerning Chandrasekhar's liberty in another criminal case, describing the conduct as an attack on the sanctity and integrity of the judicial process.

"The choice of the person impersonated was therefore not accidental," the court said, observing that Chandrasekhar deliberately sought to appropriate the credibility attached to a constitutional post.

The court rejected the argument that his failure to deceive the judicial officer or secure bail should be treated as a mitigating circumstance, saying the unsuccessful attempt did not make the act of impersonation innocuous.

It also noted that Chandrasekhar did not demonstrate genuine remorse or contrition during the trial and instead questioned the credibility of the complainant judicial officer.

The court said the case was particularly concerning in the present technological environment, where deepfakes, AI-generated audio-visual material, cloned voices and spoofed communications could make impersonation of constitutional authorities increasingly sophisticated.

"The sentence in the present case must necessarily carry a deterrent message," the court said, stressing the need to protect public confidence in the justice system.

The court also considered a list of criminal cases pending against Chandrasekhar but said those cases, being sub judice and not resulting in convictions, could not be taken into account while deciding his sentence.

The court directed that Chandrasekhar be given the benefit of the period already undergone in custody.