Incarcerated convict Sukesh Chandrasekhar failed to secure any interim legal relief from the highest judicial forum on Monday, 2 November 2026. The Supreme Court declined to entertain his petition seeking a stay on his conviction in a criminal case involving the impersonation of a apex court judge to influence judicial proceedings.
Challenge in the Top Court Following High Court Refusal
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan heard Chandrasekhar's petition and refused to grant him any respite. Chandrasekhar had approached the apex court to challenge an earlier ruling of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed his request to put a hold on his conviction and resultant sentence.
On 16 October, the Delhi High Court had disposed of his petition after observing that no valid grounds existed to stay the conviction order. The High Court pointed out that Chandrasekhar's substantive appeal against the trial court's judgment was already pending adjudication. Consequently, any grievances regarding the adverse findings, specific observations, or terminology used by the trial court ought to be examined by the appellate court. The High Court had granted him the liberty to place all his contentions directly before that forum.
Trial Court Ruling and the Eight-Year Cumulative Term
The origin of the conviction traces back to a Delhi trial court ruling delivered on 20 August, which found Chandrasekhar guilty of posing as a Supreme Court judge in a calculated bid to influence a special judge hearing his bail application in a 2017 corruption case. On 29 August, the trial court sentenced him to a cumulative eight years of imprisonment, categorising his conduct as an act of institutional desecration.
The trial judge handed down separate sentences across multiple charges. Chandrasekhar was awarded two years of rigorous imprisonment for personating a public servant, alongside an additional two years of rigorous imprisonment for intimidating a public servant. Furthermore, he was sentenced to four years behind bars for criminal intimidation through anonymous communication. The court ordered these sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently, bringing the total time to be served to eight years.
The April 2017 Phone Call and Tampering with Justice
The criminal episode dates back to 28 April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was held in police custody in connection with an ongoing corruption investigation. Prosecution evidence demonstrated that he managed to gain access to a mobile handset belonging to a police constable on duty. He then used that phone to place calls to the official landline and mobile numbers of Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary, who was presiding over matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During the communication, Chandrasekhar initially claimed to be the personal secretary of a former Supreme Court judge before elevating his false claim to state that he was the judge himself. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the impersonation was carried out deliberately to interfere with the judicial administration and obtain favourable bail orders. With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, his eight-year sentence remains fully operative pending regular appellate scrutiny.
