Sukesh Chandrashekhar’s Conviction for impersonating a Supreme Court judge and his secretary stays where it is for now: the Supreme Court has found “no error, not to speak of any error of law” in the Delhi High Court order that declined to stay it.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (November 2) turned away Sukesh Chandrashekhar, dismissing his special leave petition against a Delhi High Court order that refused to stay his conviction and sentence for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge in calls to a judicial officer. His other pending trials, the Bench clarified, must proceed on their own merits [Sukash Chandrashekar @ Sukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
SLP (Crl.) No. 20754 of 2026 was heard by a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan. Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam appeared for Chandrashekhar.
The remarks he wanted gone
The dispute centres on the trial court’s conviction judgment, which drew a line between ordinary fraud and an attempt to sway judicial proceedings. Impersonating a bureaucrat or political broker, it said, was “a transactional crime born of greed”, while impersonating a Supreme Court judge or his secretary was “an act of institutional defiance”.
The calls behind the conviction
According to the prosecution, Chandrashekhar, while in police custody in connection with a 2017 corruption case, got access to the mobile phone of a constable guarding him. He then used it to call the official landline and mobile number of the judicial officer presiding over that corruption case, posing first as the private secretary of a sitting Supreme Court judge and then as the judge himself, in an attempt to secure favourable orders.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted him on August 20, 2026 under Sections 170 (personating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant) and 507 (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) of the Indian Penal Code, and passed the order on sentence on August 29, 2026.
From the Sessions Court to the High Court
His appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2026, is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-06 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts. On October 6, 2026, the Sessions Court dismissed his application to stay the conviction and sentence pending that appeal.
Chandrashekhar then moved the Delhi High Court under Section 528 read with Section 430(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. His Senior Counsel told Justice Sanjeev Narula that he had already undergone the sentence, and that his grievance was mainly with the findings and adverse expressions used by the trial court, which he feared could prejudice him in other pending criminal cases.
By order dated October 16, 2026, the High Court declined to step in, holding that these objections belonged before the appellate court:
“…since the appeal against the judgment of conviction is already pending, the Petitioner’s objections to the findings recorded therein, including the adverse observations and expressions used by the Trial Court, are matters which ought to be examined by the Appellate Court.”
Holding that “No case for stay of conviction judgment is made out”, the High Court disposed of the petition and left all contentions open before the appellate court.
Before the Supreme Court Bench
Justice Pardiwala began by asking why a stay of conviction was being sought at all. Alam replied that the trial court’s observations were made on account of 31 pending criminal cases against Chandrashekhar, even though it had noted that he had not been convicted in them. He argued that the remarks would prejudice the other trials, and pointed to Section 41 of the new evidence law, under which, he said, they would be treated as evidence of bad character.
The Bench was not persuaded and dismissed the petition, recording:
“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, there is no error, not to speak of any error of law, have been committed by the High Court by passing the impugned order. It goes without saying that all other trials should proceed on its own merit in accordance with law.”
An appeal still to be heard
The conviction remains under appeal before the Sessions Court, where Chandrashekhar is free to press all his contentions. The other criminal cases against him are pending and untested, and he is presumed innocent in each of them unless proven guilty. Neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court has expressed any view on the merits of the appeal.
Why the order matters
A stay of conviction pending appeal is an exceptional remedy, usually reserved for cases where the conviction would cause irreversible consequences, such as disqualification from office. Here the convict had already served the sentence, and his stated concern was the language of the judgment. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court treated that as a matter for the appellate court that will examine the conviction on its merits, rather than a reason to suspend the conviction itself.
At the same time, the Supreme Court’s line that “all other trials should proceed on its own merit” answers the worry about prejudice. Each pending case has to be decided on the evidence led in it, and adverse remarks in one judgment do not decide another. The ruling also signals the seriousness with which courts view attempts to reach a judicial officer by posing as a member of the higher judiciary.
Case Title: Sukash Chandrashekar @ Sukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [SLP (Crl.) No. 20754 of 2026]
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam for the petitioner
Order under challenge: Delhi High Court, Justice Sanjeev Narula, CRL.M.C. 7902/2026, October 16, 2026