Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi HC Order On Ex-NSE Chief Chitra Ramkrishna's PC Act Plea

Today, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's dismissal of former National Stock Exchange (NSE) MD & CEO Chitra Ramkrishna's plea challenging the CBI prosecution against her in the NSE co-location case.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that Ramkrishna's contention that NSE officials cannot be treated as “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be raised before the trial court. The judges held:

“We are of the view that no error could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment. The petitioner was the MD and CEO of NSE. The argument is that NSE being a private/non-government company, it cannot be said that the petitioner was discharging a public duty. We are of the view that this point can be raised in course of the trial. Let this issue be decided by the trial court on its own merits.”

Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramkrishna, argued that she could not be treated as a public servant merely because the NSE functioned under a regulatory regime.

“I don't hold office by virtue of a regulatory/government regime,” he submitted. He added that while Ramkrishna was willing to face the IPC proceedings, the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be invoked against her.

The case concerns allegations by the CBI that certain brokers received preferential access to the NSE's servers between 2010 and 2014. The agency alleged that Ramkrishna facilitated a system susceptible to manipulation and abused her position in connection with the appointment and remuneration of Anand Subramanian.

Ramkrishna challenged the CBI proceedings before the Delhi High Court, arguing that NSE officials could not be treated as public servants. She also questioned the validity of the prosecution sanction.

The High Court had rejected her challenge, holding that recognised stock exchanges perform public duties and that the Prevention of Corruption Act's definition of “public servant” was neither vague nor unconstitutional.

It observed that the provision requires two conditions to be satisfied: the person must hold an office and perform a public duty by virtue of that office. It held that whether these conditions are satisfied must be determined in each case.

Further, it had also upheld the prosecution sanction. It held that the NSE Board's clarification merely left the questions of whether Ramkrishna was a public servant and whether the Prevention of Corruption Act applied to the NSE for determination by the competent court.

The Supreme Court left these issues open for consideration by the trial court and clarified that its observations should not influence the trial.