सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने चितारा रामकृष्णा के भ्रष्टाचार मुकदमे में सार्वजनिक अधिकारी दर्जे पर दखल नहीं दिया

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of former National Stock Exchange (NSE) Managing Director and CEO Chitra Ramkrishna’s plea challenging her prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that Ramkrishna was free to raise the issue before the trial court, which could decide it on its merits.

Ramkrishna had argued that the PC Act could not be invoked against her as she was not a “public servant”, since NSE is a private, non-government entity.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, ruling that whether former NSE chief Chitra Ramkrishna was discharging a public duty despite the NSE being a private entity is a question that must be raised and decided during trial.

The case against Ramkrishna stems from a February 11 order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which found alleged financial irregularities concerning the fixation and repeated revision of the compensation of former NSE employee Anand Subramanian.

Ramkrishna has been accused of favouring Subramanian and allegedly acting in concert with an individual whom she described as a “Siddha Purusha”.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has alleged that Subramanian, while discharging a public duty to protect the interests of common investors, entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and caused undue advantage to various trading members and brokers.

Another allegation against Ramkrishna concerns her communication through email with a purported Himalayan Yogi, whom the CBI later claimed was none other than 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.

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) brings within the definition of a “public servant” a person who holds an office by virtue of which they are authorised or required to perform a public duty.

The High Court had held that NSE performs a public duty and that Ramkrishna, as its MD and CEO, could not be completely divorced from the functions of a stock exchange in which the public at large has an interest.

The High Court had also rejected her challenge to the sanction granted for her prosecution under the PC Act.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramkrishna, argued that she did not hold her office pursuant to any regulatory or government regime and, therefore, the provisions of the PC Act could not be applied to her.

He submitted that while the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could continue, the proceedings under the PC Act could not be sustained.

The Supreme Court asked whether Ramkrishna had filed an application seeking discharge from the case. The Bench also observed that the special court would retain jurisdiction even if it ultimately concluded that Ramkrishna was not a public servant.

Observing that the trial court would retain jurisdiction even if it eventually found the petitioner not to be a public servant, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner should not have prematurely sought an order from the High Court.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News