Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court is set to hear arguments on maintainability of a plea filed by alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar seeking deletion of certain “derogatory” remarks made against him in a trial court judgment convicting him for impersonating a Supreme Court Judge and attempting to pressurise a judicial officer to grant bail.

Justice Madhu Jain listed the matter for hearing on November 3 after the State objected to the maintainability of Chandrashekhar's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The State submitted that Chandrashekhar could not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 after he had already been convicted and sentenced by the trial court.

Chandrashekhar, on the other hand, submitted that other criminal trials against him are still pending and sought the Court's intervention against the adverse remarks made in the judgment.

The Court, at this stage, did not examine the merits of Chandrashekhar's grievance and directed that arguments on the preliminary issue of maintainability be heard on November 3.

Chandrashekhar had allegedly impersonated the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court Judge and subsequently the Judge himself, making calls to a judicial officer in an attempt to secure favourable orders in his case.

The trial court had made strong observations regarding the conduct attributed to Chandrashekhar while recording his conviction.

Through the present plea, Chandrashekhar is seeking the setting aside or deletion of the remarks which he claims are derogatory.

The High Court will first determine whether such a challenge can be entertained under Article 226 after conviction and sentencing, before considering the substantive grievance raised by Chandrashekhar.

Notably, in it's order, the trial court had objected to the manner in which Sukesh had attempted to influence the judicial officer. It noted: 

"This world has seen many a 'inglorious conmen' and 'Natwar Lals', who have deceived businessmen, companies, gullible investors or unsuspecting members of the public. But the kind of deception practised by Sukesh, the conman standing before this Court in this case with the intention of altering the course of judicial proceedings, lends the mischief an altogether different and extremely egregious character."

"Having spent a career spoofing caller IDs, impersonating Union Ministers, and convincing gullible millionaires that he held the keys to the corridors of power, accused Sukesh appears to have fallen victim to his own propaganda. He operated under the dangerous belief that if a lie is only grand enough and uttered with sufficient audacity, the rule of law will simply bow its head and step aside. He forgot that impersonating a bureaucrat or a political broker is a transactional crime born of greed but impersonating a Supreme Court Judge or his Secretary, is an act of institutional defiance," the court had added.

W.P.(CRL) - 2607/2026 SUKASH CHANDRASHEKHAR @ SUKESH V/S THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Tags: