Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused himself from hearing Jacqueline Fernandez’s plea in the Rs 200-crore money laundering case involving Sukesh Chandrashekhar, citing a conflict of interest arising from a connected matter. The Supreme Court directed that the case be listed on June 25 before a different Bench.
In the high-profile Rs 200-crore money laundering case involving Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez and alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court judge Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra recused himself from hearing the actor’s challenge to a Delhi court order directing the framing of charges against her.
The matter came up before a partial working day Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar. At the outset of the proceedings, Justice Mishra informed the parties that he would not be able to hear the case owing to a conflict arising from a connected matter.
Addressing counsel appearing in the case, Justice Mishra observed:
“There is some difficulty. In one of the connected matters, my son had appeared on the government side. Post on June 25 before a bench in which one of us is not a member.”
In view of the recusal, the Bench directed that the matter be listed before another Bench on June 25.
Challenge to Delhi Court’s Order Framing Charges
Jacqueline Fernandez has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi trial court order dated May 30, whereby charges were directed to be framed against her, alleged mastermind Sukesh Chandrashekhar, and several other accused persons in connection with the multi-crore money laundering case.
The trial court had ordered the framing of charges against Chandrashekhar and numerous co-accused after finding sufficient material to proceed with the prosecution. The case has attracted widespread public attention because of its alleged links to extortion, impersonation of government officials, and the involvement of several high-profile personalities.
Apart from the money laundering allegations, the trial court also directed that charges be framed against Chandrashekhar and other accused under various provisions, including those contained in the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), in a separate case investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
Background of the Rs 200-Crore Fraud Case
The case originates from allegations that Sukesh Chandrashekhar orchestrated a massive extortion racket while lodged in prison. Investigating agencies claim that he operated a sophisticated criminal network from inside jail and managed to deceive wealthy individuals through elaborate impersonation schemes.
According to the prosecution, Chandrashekhar falsely projected himself as a powerful intermediary with access to senior government functionaries and influential political figures. Investigators allege that he used spoofed phone calls, encrypted communication platforms, and fabricated identities to gain the confidence of victims.
One of the principal complainants in the case is Aditi Singh, the wife of former Fortis Healthcare promoter Shivinder Singh. Authorities allege that Chandrashekhar and his associates fraudulently induced Singh and her family members to part with enormous sums of money on the pretext of securing legal and administrative assistance.
The Enforcement Directorate subsequently initiated a money laundering investigation, tracing the proceeds of the alleged crime and identifying multiple beneficiaries of funds and gifts linked to the accused.
Jacqueline Fernandez came under the scanner during the Enforcement Directorate’s probe into the financial transactions connected to Chandrashekhar. Although she was initially questioned as a witness, the agency later named her as an accused in a supplementary prosecution complaint filed before the trial court.
Contentions of ED
According to the ED, Fernandez maintained regular communication with Chandrashekhar despite being aware of the allegations surrounding him. The agency has alleged that she received expensive gifts and other benefits from Chandrashekhar through his close associate Pinky Irani. Investigators claim that the gifts included luxury items, designer accessories, jewellery, and other valuable articles allegedly purchased using proceeds generated from criminal activities.
The ED has maintained that the actor knowingly enjoyed benefits derived from unlawful proceeds, a charge that Fernandez has consistently disputed.
The Enforcement Directorate and Delhi Police have portrayed Chandrashekhar as the head of an organised criminal syndicate that functioned despite his incarceration. According to the prosecution, Chandrashekhar impersonated senior officials from various government departments, including the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to lend credibility to his schemes.
Investigators allege that these false representations enabled him to convince victims that he possessed influence within the highest levels of government and could secure favourable outcomes in legal and administrative matters. The prosecution further contends that a network of associates assisted Chandrashekhar in executing the fraud and laundering the proceeds generated through the alleged criminal enterprise.
Matter to be Heard by Another Bench
With Justice Mishra recusing himself from the case, Jacqueline Fernandez’s challenge to the order framing charges will now be considered by a different Bench of the Supreme Court.
The actor’s plea assumes significance because it seeks judicial scrutiny of the trial court’s decision to proceed against her in a case that has remained in the spotlight due to its sensational allegations and high-profile personalities.
The matter is presently scheduled to be listed on June 25 before an alternative Bench of the Supreme Court, which will examine Fernandez’s challenge to the order directing the framing of charges against her in the money laundering proceedings.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE