NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday asked Sukesh Chandrasekhar to show the maintainability of his petition alleging judicial bias and for expunging the remarks made by the court while convicting him.
Justice Madhu Jain asked the counsel for Sukesh Chandrasekhar to argue on maintainability after Delhi police opposed the petition, saying that it is not maintainable as the petitioner has been sentenced after the conviction. The remedy lies in the appeal.
Advocate Anant Malik submitted that he is not pressing the prayer against the conviction. He will argue on the maintainability. The matter has been listed on November 3 for arguements on maintainability.
Convicted in the 2017 case of impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge to allegedly influence a judicial officer for securing bail, Sukesh Chandrasekhar has now approached the Delhi High Court seeking that the judgment be set aside on grounds including alleged violation of fair trial principles, judicial bias and prejudicial remarks made against him.
According to the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court, Chandrasekhar has sought setting aside of the August 20, 2026 conviction judgment passed by the trial court in FIR No. 100/2017 registered at Subzi Mandi police station. The petition also seeks expunction of what it describes as derogatory, pejorative and stigmatic observations made against him, contending that such remarks travel beyond the record of the case.
Advocate Anant Malik, appearing for Chandrasekhar, said his client has immediately moved the Delhi High Court after the conviction.
Malik said the petition seeks setting aside of the conviction order on the ground that it is contrary to the Delhi High Court Rules and settled principles of law, while also alleging that the judgment reflects a perception of judicial bias. He further said the petition seeks expunction of remarks which, according to the defence, are beyond the judicial record and have caused continuing prejudice to Chandrasekhar.
“The conviction is being challenged because a citizen’s fundamental right to liberty cannot be trampled upon in this manner. It is a severe legal anomaly that our client has undergone eight long years of incarceration for an alleged offence that carries a maximum punishment of two years. When this excessive detention is coupled with what we believe was an openly hostile and biased trial process and the absence of physical evidence such as the phone or any recordings, it becomes clear that the conviction was a predetermined conclusion. We are confident that the High Court will recognise these systemic violations and set aside the order,” Malik said.
The petition alleges that even before the judgment was pronounced, Chandrasekhar had approached the superior court expressing apprehension regarding the manner in which the trial was being conducted. It refers to alleged oral observations made during final arguments on August 17, 2026, where the trial court allegedly indicated that the defence submissions would not lead to an acquittal. The petition contends that these circumstances created a reasonable apprehension that the final adjudication lacked complete judicial detachment.
A major grievance raised in the petition concerns repeated descriptions of Chandrasekhar in the judgment as a “conman”, “seasoned conman” and “fraudster”. The petition argues that these expressions were unnecessary for deciding the criminal case and that the trial court went beyond the evidence by making broader observations regarding his alleged personality, criminal propensity and supposed career of deception.
The petition specifically relies upon portions of the judgment where the trial court used the expression “seasoned conman” while dealing with the defence argument concerning the availability of the judicial officer’s telephone number. According to the plea, such characterisation was employed as part of the reasoning process instead of confining the adjudication to the evidence relating to the alleged impersonation offence.
Chandrasekhar has also relied upon earlier judicial orders, including a 2022 order which cautioned against prejudicial or predetermined descriptions of an accused and a subsequent 2025 civil court order directing that the term “conman” should not be used while referring to him in reporting concerning pending cases until further orders. The present petition contends that despite those judicial observations, the impugned judgment repeatedly adopted the same terminology.
In its prayers, the petition seeks remand of the matter to another court for fresh hearing of final arguments, deletion of the allegedly prejudicial remarks, and a declaration that such observations should not be treated as findings regarding Chandrasekhar’s general character or relied upon against him in any other judicial or administrative proceedings. It also seeks deferment of the sentencing proceedings during the pendency of the petition.
On August 20, 2026, Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, convicted Chandrasekhar under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with allegations that he impersonated a sitting Supreme Court judge and attempted to influence Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary to grant him bail in a separate corruption case.
The prosecution case was that while in police custody in April 2017, Chandrasekhar allegedly obtained access to the mobile phone of Delhi Police constable Manjeet and used it to contact the judicial officer. According to the trial court judgment, the caller first introduced himself as the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge and subsequently impersonated the judge himself, claiming to be calling on behalf of the Home Ministry and the Supreme Court Collegium while pressing for Chandrasekhar’s immediate release on bail.
The judicial officer did not act upon the alleged request and instead verified the claim through the Supreme Court judge’s office, following which an FIR was registered, and the investigation was later transferred to the Crime Branch.
While convicting Chandrasekhar, the trial court relied upon the testimony of the judicial officer, call detail records and other circumstantial evidence, holding that the prosecution had proved the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. At the same time, the court also recorded deficiencies in the investigation and directed the Delhi Police to examine those lapses and undertake scrutiny of the role of Constable Manjeet, while clarifying that such observations did not amount to a finding of guilt against the constable.
