‘Didn’t Just Cross the Line But Leapt Over it': Conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar Convicted for Impersonating SC Judge, Moves Delhi HC

New Delhi: Convicted earlier this month for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge in a bid to secure bail, Sukesh Chandrasekhar has moved the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside the trial court’s judgment and expunge what he describes as derogatory and prejudicial remarks made against him.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, convicted Chandrasekhar on August 20, 2026, under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 100/2017 registered at Subzi Mandi police station. The case stems from allegations that in April 2017, while in police custody in a separate corruption matter, he used a Delhi Police constable’s mobile phone to contact Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary. The caller allegedly first claimed to be the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge before impersonating the judge himself, citing the Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium while pressing for Chandrasekhar’s immediate release on bail. The judicial officer verified the claim and did not act on the request, leading to the registration of the FIR; the investigation was later transferred to the Crime Branch.

The trial court relied on the judicial officer’s testimony, call detail records and other circumstantial evidence to hold that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It also noted deficiencies in the investigation and directed Delhi Police to examine the role of the constable whose phone was allegedly used, while clarifying that this did not amount to a finding of guilt against him.

In his writ petition, Chandrasekhar has challenged the conviction as contrary to Delhi High Court Rules and settled legal principles. He has alleged a perception of judicial bias, violation of fair trial rights, and the use of unnecessary pejorative language describing him as a “conman,” “seasoned conman” and “fraudster.” The petition contends these characterisations went beyond the evidence and the record of the case, and that they run contrary to earlier judicial observations, including a 2022 order cautioning against predetermined descriptions of an accused and a 2025 civil court direction restraining the use of the term “conman” in reporting on pending cases against him until further orders.

Advocate Anant Malik, appearing for Chandrasekhar, said the petition was filed immediately after the conviction and was mentioned urgently before Justice Madhu Jain. It has now been listed for hearing on August 31, 2026. Malik argued that his client has already spent eight years in custody for an offence that carries a maximum punishment of two years, and that the absence of physical evidence such as the phone or recordings, combined with what the defence views as a hostile trial process, points to a predetermined outcome.

The petition further refers to alleged oral observations made by the trial court during final arguments on August 17, 2026, which, according to the defence, indicated that the submissions would not result in an acquittal, creating a reasonable apprehension of lack of complete judicial detachment. Chandrasekhar had earlier approached a superior court expressing concerns about the conduct of the trial.

Among the reliefs sought are the setting aside of the conviction, remand of the matter to another court for fresh hearing of final arguments, expunction of the contested remarks, a declaration that those observations should not be treated as findings on his character or used against him in other proceedings, and deferment of sentencing while the petition remains pending.

The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on August 31, 2026.

Also Read: VHP Calls NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Opposition to RSS Event ‘Narrow-Minded,’ Defends Free Speech