Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC’s Ruling in NSE Scam Case
The Supreme Court of India has decided not to intervene in the Delhi High Court’s decision to reject the plea of Chitra Ramkrishna, the former Managing Director and CEO of the National Stock Exchange (NSE). Ramkrishna had challenged her prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), arguing that she should not be classified as a public servant.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran concluded that Ramkrishna’s argument could be addressed during the trial. “We see no error in the High Court’s judgment. The petitioner, as the NSE’s MD and CEO, contends that NSE’s status as a private company exempts her from being considered as performing a public duty. This issue can be contested in the trial court,” the bench stated.
Implications of the SEBI Order and the CBI’s Allegations
The legal proceedings against Chitra Ramkrishna were initiated following a Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) order dated February 11, which accused her of financial misconduct concerning the salary determinations of Anand Subramanian, another former NSE official. The allegations extend to Ramkrishna’s purported communications with a ‘Siddha Purusha,’ later claimed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to be Subramanian himself.
The CBI has further alleged that Subramanian, under the guise of public duty, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to benefit various trading entities. Ramkrishna’s interactions with a so-called Himalayan Yogi, who the CBI identified as Subramanian, form a part of these allegations.
Legal Definitions and High Court’s Decision
Ramkrishna’s appeal was previously dismissed by the Delhi High Court in July. She had contested the applicability of Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, which define ‘public duty’ and ‘public servant,’ respectively. The High Court maintained that the NSE performs a public duty, and, as its head, Ramkrishna was not detached from the exchange’s public functions.
More Read
The court also upheld the validity of the sanction for her prosecution under the PC Act. During the Supreme Court hearing, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, representing Ramkrishna, argued that her role did not derive from any regulatory or governmental framework, thus exempting her from the PC Act. He contended that while charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) might proceed, the PC Act was not applicable.
In response, the Supreme Court inquired whether Ramkrishna had filed a discharge application and clarified that the special court would retain jurisdiction even if it later determined she was not a public servant. “A special court does not lose jurisdiction if it finds you’re not a public servant. The High Court order should not have been sought,” the Court remarked.
This decision underscores the complexity of defining public duty within private enterprises and sets a precedent for similar cases.
