The case dates back to April 2017, when Chandrasekhar was in police custody in connection with a corruption case. According to the prosecution, he gained access to a police constable’s mobile phone and used it to contact the official landline and personal mobile number of the judicial officer handling his case. The caller initially claimed to be the personal secretary of a Supreme Court judge. Another person then allegedly joined the conversation and presented himself as the judge, invoking the authority of the Supreme Court and the Union Home Ministry. The judicial officer was allegedly directed to grant Chandrasekhar bail or interim bail and was warned of professional consequences if she did not comply. The judicial officer subsequently verified the call with the Supreme Court and was informed that no such communication had been made by the judge concerned.

She then reported the incident, leading to the criminal investigation. In its judgment, the court described the episode as an extraordinary attempt to interfere with the administration of justice. It observed that Chandrasekhar had not merely crossed a line but had “leapt over it” by allegedly using the identity of a Supreme Court judge to manipulate an ongoing judicial proceeding. The court also stressed that judicial decisions are meant to be based on the law, evidence and proceedings before the court, rather than private telephone communications or threats. It said that using the authority associated with the Supreme Court in an attempt to influence another judicial officer had serious institutional implications. The judgment also criticised the Delhi Police investigation, calling it superficial and highlighting several alleged lapses. The court noted that investigators failed to recover the mobile phone involved, secure certain CCTV footage and properly examine some relevant evidence.

The court further directed senior police officials to re-examine the possible role of Constable Manjeet, whose phone Chandrasekhar allegedly used. The judgment clarified that this direction did not amount to a finding of guilt against the police constable but said the circumstances warranted further investigation. Despite pointing out shortcomings in the police investigation, the court concluded that the evidence available was sufficient to establish Chandrasekhar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the impersonation was not an isolated act of deception but was allegedly carried out with the specific objective of influencing judicial discretion and obtaining a favourable bail order. Chandrasekhar is already facing multiple criminal cases and has been involved in several high-profile investigations over the years. The latest conviction adds another significant legal development to his long list of cases. The court has scheduled the matter for August 27, 2026, when Chandrasekhar will be heard on the question of sentence.