Sukesh Chandrasekhar Delhi HC Conviction Challenge: Prejudgment Alleged

• Sukesh Chandrasekhar has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging his August 20 conviction by a Tis Hazari Courts magistrate.
• The petition alleges judicial prejudgment, citing specific remarks made by the trial court during final arguments, and seeks to expunge "derogatory" observations from the judgment.
• Chandrasekhar was convicted in a 2017 case for impersonating a Supreme Court judge to influence a judicial officer, under IPC Sections 170, 189, and 507.
• His appeal also raises concerns over the trial court's decision to close defence evidence, despite two proposed witnesses remaining unserved.
• The Delhi High Court, with Justice Madhu Jain presiding, is scheduled to hear the matter on August 31.

A core tenet of Chandrasekhar's appeal is the assertion that the trial court had already determined its verdict before the judgment was formally pronounced.

Sukesh Chandrasekhar has initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court, seeking to overturn a trial court conviction from August 20. The challenge, filed on August 24, centers on allegations of judicial prejudgment and procedural irregularities during the trial, specifically concerning the closure of defence evidence. Chandrasekhar, who was found guilty in a 2017 case, is requesting that the High Court set aside the judgment issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts. He also seeks the removal of what his petition describes as "derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary" characterizations made about him within the verdict.

The conviction stems from an incident where Chandrasekhar was accused of impersonating a Supreme Court judge to exert influence over a judicial officer. While in custody for an unrelated corruption case, he allegedly gained access to a police constable’s mobile phone. He then reportedly used this device to contact then Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary, initially pretending to be the private secretary of a Supreme Court judge, and subsequently the judge himself, in an attempt to sway a bail decision. The trial court ultimately convicted him under Sections 170, 189, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with FIR No. 100/2017, registered at the Subzi Mandi police station. His counsel, Advocate Anant Malik, urgently mentioned the matter before Justice Madhu Jain, with the case now scheduled for a hearing on August 31.

A core tenet of Chandrasekhar's appeal is the assertion that the trial court had already determined its verdict before the judgment was formally pronounced. The petition highlights specific instances during the final arguments on August 17, where the court allegedly informed Chandrasekhar's counsel that their submissions "will not lead to you to acquittal" and explicitly stated, "I will not acquit on this basis." This claim is bolstered by the fact that Chandrasekhar approached the High Court prior to the judgment's official release, aiming to preempt any dismissal of his prejudgment allegations as a mere reaction to an unfavorable outcome.

Furthermore, the petition takes strong exception to the language employed in the trial court's judgment. It points to repeated instances where Chandrasekhar was labeled a "conman" and a "seasoned conman," including a specific observation that "A seasoned conman does not require a telephone directory to commit an offence." These characterizations, the petition argues, were used even when addressing the disputed question of how the judicial officer's telephone number was obtained. Chandrasekhar's legal team references a 2022 order from a separate case involving him, which stipulated that an accused facing trial should not be subjected to "prejudice or predetermined description," arguing that the trial court's judgment contravened this principle by referring to alleged conduct in other cases and involving other individuals.

The challenge also extends to the manner in which the trial court concluded the presentation of defence evidence. The prosecution had presented 16 witnesses between February 2019 and April 2026. Following this, Chandrasekhar was granted the opportunity to introduce his defence. His wife, Leena Paulose, was examined as a witness, but two other proposed defence witnesses could not be served with summons. Citing the protracted duration of the case, the trial court declined to grant any further opportunities for the defence to present additional witnesses on July 9. A subsequent revision petition against this order was dismissed on July 17, further solidifying the procedural grounds for the current Delhi High Court prejudgment allegations.

Despite these procedural objections, the trial court's conviction was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence presented. While acknowledging the absence of the allegedly used mobile handset, SIM card, and any voice recording, the court found the prosecution's case to be sufficiently supported by other crucial elements. These included call detail records, the testimony of police personnel who observed Chandrasekhar using the phone, and the direct testimony of the judicial officer who was allegedly targeted. The trial court concluded that these circumstances collectively formed a corroborated chain of evidence, justifying the conviction under FIR 100/2017 Subzi Mandi.

This case provides a critical example of challenging a conviction based on alleged judicial prejudgment and procedural irregularities in closing defence evidence. Lawyers should monitor the Delhi High Court's decision for potential precedents regarding judicial conduct and the grounds for overturning trial court judgments due to perceived bias.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources