The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against former National Stock Exchange (NSE) managing director and chief executive officer Chitra Ramkrishna.
A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said Ramkrishna could raise before the trial court her contention that she could not be treated as a “public servant” under the PC Act since NSE was a private, non-government entity.
“We are of the view that no error could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned (challenged) judgement,” the Bench said.
The court said the question of whether Ramkrishna was a public servant could be determined by the trial court on its own merits during the proceedings.
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramkrishna, argued that she did not hold office under any regulatory or government regime and, therefore, the PC Act could not be invoked against her.
While proceedings under the Indian Penal Code (now BNS) could continue, he submitted, the corruption case could not be sustained.
The Bench asked whether Ramkrishna had moved a discharge application before the trial court. It also clarified that the special court would retain jurisdiction even if it eventually concluded that she was not a public servant.
“It’s not as if a special court loses jurisdiction if they find that you’re not a public servant,” the court observed.
Ramkrishna’s challenge stems from allegations relating to the appointment and remuneration of former NSE group operating officer Anand Subramanian.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), in an order dated February 11, 2022, had examined the fixation and repeated revision of Subramanian’s compensation during Ramkrishna’s tenure.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has alleged that Subramanian, while discharging a public duty involving the protection of investors’ interests, was part of a criminal conspiracy with other accused that resulted in undue benefits being extended to various trading members and brokers.
The investigation has also focused on Ramkrishna’s communications with an individual she described as a “Siddha Purusha” or Himalayan yogi. The CBI has alleged that the person was Subramanian.
Ramkrishna had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court in July rejected her challenge to Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act. The High Court had also refused to interfere with the sanction granted for her prosecution.
Section 2(b) defines “public duty” as a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. Section 2(c)(viii) covers a person holding an office by virtue of which they are authorised or required to perform such a public duty.
The Delhi High Court had held that NSE performs a public duty and that its MD and CEO could not be completely separated from the stock exchange’s functions, given the interest of the public in its operations.
The Supreme Court’s order leaves the core question of Ramkrishna’s status under the PC Act open for adjudication by the trial court.
