Back
to Hear of Sukesh Chandrashekhar Plea Against
The has fixed , for hearing arguments on the threshold issue of in a petition filed by convicted conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar. The petitioner seeks deletion of certain "derogatory" and "stigmatic" remarks made by a trial court in its judgment convicting him for impersonating a judge. Justice Madhu Jain, presiding over the matter, declined to examine the merits at this stage after the State raised a , contending that the remedy of a under is not available to a convicted person who has already been sentenced.
The case highlights a delicate intersection of criminal procedure, judicial discretion, and the limits of . Chandrashekhar, currently serving a sentence in connection with the 2017 impersonation case, argues that the trial court's observations—particularly the repeated use of terms like "conman," "seasoned conman," and "fraudster"—were unnecessary for the adjudication and have caused continuing prejudice in his other pending criminal trials. The , representing the State, has countered that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the conviction rather than invoke the High Court's .
Background: The Impersonation Scheme
The underlying case dates back to , when Chandrashekhar was in police custody in a separate corruption matter. According to the prosecution, he gained access to the mobile phone of constable Manjeet and used it to contact Special Judge Poonam Chaudhary, who was hearing his bail application. The caller first introduced himself as the personal secretary of a sitting judge and then impersonated the judge himself, claiming to be calling on behalf of the and the Collegium. The caller pressured Chaudhary to release Chandrashekhar on bail immediately.
The judicial officer, instead of acting on the request, verified the claim through the judge's office. Upon discovering the deception, she reported the matter, leading to the registration of FIR No. 100/2017 at Subzi Mandi police station. The investigation was later transferred to the Crime Branch.
On , Chief Judicial Magistrate Harshita Mishra of the Central District, , convicted Chandrashekhar under Sections 170 (impersonating a public servant), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 507 (anonymous communication) of the . The trial court relied on the testimony of the judicial officer, call detail records, and other circumstantial evidence to hold the prosecution's case proved .
The Trial Court's Stinging Language
What has drawn Chandrashekhar's challenge is not only the conviction but the tone and content of the judgment itself. The trial court, while recording its findings, made several broad observations about the accused's character and criminal propensity:
"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."
The judgment further remarked:
"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 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 Judge or his Secretary, is an act of institutional defiance."
These passages, according to the defence, go far beyond what was necessary for deciding the case and effectively brand the accused as a habitual criminal with no regard for the law.
The Petition: Seeking Expunction and a Fresh Hearing
Chandrashekhar, through his advocate
, filed a
before the
on an urgent basis soon after the conviction. The petition seeks multiple reliefs: setting aside of the conviction order on grounds of alleged violation of
,
, and
; expunction of what are described as
"derogatory, pejorative and
"
; and a declaration that such remarks should not be treated as
or relied upon in any other judicial or administrative proceedings against him.
Crucially, the petition also seeks remand of the matter to a different court for fresh hearing of final arguments, alleging that the trial court had already made up its mind before pronouncing judgment. The petition refers to oral observations made during final arguments on
, where the trial court allegedly indicated that the defence submissions would not lead to an acquittal. This, according to the petitioner, created
"a reasonable apprehension that the final adjudication lacked complete judicial detachment."
Advocate Malik stated,
"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."
The petition also relies on a 2022 judicial order that cautioned against prejudicial descriptions of an accused, and a subsequent 2025 civil court order directing that the term "conman" should not be used while referring to Chandrashekhar in reporting concerning pending cases until further orders. Despite those observations, the impugned judgment repeatedly used the same terminology.
The State's Objection
When the matter came up before Justice Madhu Jain on August 31, the State, represented by the , raised a . The State submitted that Chandrashekhar cannot invoke the of the High Court under Article 226 after he has already been convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The remedy, it argued, lies in an appeal, not in a fresh .
Justice Madhu Jain noted the objection and directed that the preliminary issue of be argued on November 3. The Court did not examine the merits of Chandrashekhar's grievance at this stage. Advocate clarified that he is not pressing the prayer against the conviction at this juncture and will argue only on .
The legal question is whether a convicted person can approach the High Court under Article 226 to seek made in a judgment, especially when the judgment also contains the conviction. The jurisprudence on is well-settled: courts have to expunge unnecessary or disparaging observations that are not relevant to the case. However, the timing and procedural vehicle matter. An appellate court can certainly expunge remarks; but a writ court may be reluctant to interfere when the remedy of appeal is available. The State's objection underscores that Chandrashekhar's challenge to the conviction itself must be through an appeal, and the remarks are interwoven with the conviction.
Yet, Chandrashekhar's counsel may argue that the remarks are not part of the of the judgment and are extraneous, and that the is the appropriate remedy because the remarks cause continuing prejudice in separate pending trials. The High Court will have to decide whether the availability of an bars a seeking only expunction.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case raises significant issues for the criminal justice system. The use of strong language in judgments—especially terms like "conman" or "fraudster"—is not uncommon, but it can have consequences beyond the immediate case. Such observations may be used against the accused in other proceedings, as , and may influence other judges or tribunals. The law allows judicial officers to express their views forcefully, but those views must be grounded in evidence and relevant to the findings.
If the allows the petition on , it could set a precedent that a under Article 226 is maintainable after conviction for the limited purpose of expunging remarks, even when an appeal is pending or available. This would provide an avenue for convicts to challenge unfair characterizations without having to wait for the entire appeal process.
Conversely, if the court agrees with the State and dismisses the petition as not maintainable, Chandrashekhar will have to move the appellate court. But the remarks will remain on record and could be used in his other pending trials in the interim. The trial court itself, while convicting, also noted deficiencies in the investigation and directed an inquiry into the role of Constable Manjeet, but that does not help the petitioner.
Another dimension is the alleged violation of . The petitioner claims that the trial judge exhibited bias even before the judgment. Such allegations, if substantiated, could lead to a before another judge. However, proving is notoriously difficult, and the High Court may not entertain such a claim on a without first exhausting the appeal.
Looking Ahead
The November 3 hearing will be crucial. The court will need to determine whether a writ court can intervene after a conviction to surgically remove objectionable remarks without disturbing the conviction itself. Legal experts are divided: some argue that the High Court's is plenary and can be invoked for any purpose, including expunction, while others contend that the scheme of the provides an .
Chandrashekhar remains in custody, and his other cases—including a high-profile money laundering and extortion case—continue to progress. The trial court's characterization of him as a "seasoned conman" has already been publicized. The High Court's decision on will determine whether he gets an early opportunity to clear his name from those observations, or whether he must wait for the appellate process to run its course.
For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the power of judicial rhetoric and the need to separately challenge irrelevant characterizations. It also highlights the strategic use of as a parallel remedy.
The will now proceed to hear the arguments on . The outcome will be closely watched by lawyers and criminal law litigants alike.
