Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Chitra Ramkrishna’s Plea Against PC Act Prosecution

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment dismissing a plea filed by former National Stock Exchange (NSE) Managing Director and CEO Chitra Ramkrishna, who had challenged her prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) on the ground that she could not be treated as a “public servant.”

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that Ramkrishna’s contention that she was not a public servant could be raised before the trial court and decided on its own merits.

The Court observed that no error could be found in the Delhi High Court’s judgment. It noted that Ramkrishna was the MD and CEO of NSE and that her argument was essentially that NSE was a private, non-government company and therefore she could not be considered to have been discharging a public duty.

The Bench said that this issue could be considered during the trial.

Dispute Relates to NSE Compensation Decisions

The case against Ramkrishna arises from a February 11 order of SEBI, which found alleged irregularities concerning the fixation and repeated revision of the compensation of former NSE employee Anand Subramanian.

Ramkrishna was accused of acting in concert with an individual whom she described as a “Siddha Purusha” or Himalayan Yogi. The CBI later alleged that the person communicating with Ramkrishna through email was actually Subramanian.

The CBI has alleged that Subramanian, while performing a public duty aimed at protecting the interests of investors, entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and caused undue advantages to certain trading members and brokers.

What is the Legal Issue?

Ramkrishna had challenged the applicability of Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption 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) expands the definition of “public servant” to include a person who holds an office by virtue of which they are authorised or required to perform 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 divorced from the functions of the stock exchange, particularly when those functions involve an interest of the public at large.

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

Supreme Court Says Issue Can Be Raised Before Trial Court

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramkrishna, argued that she did not hold her office under any regulatory or government regime and therefore the PC Act could not be invoked against her.

He submitted that although the prosecution under the IPC could continue, the proceedings under the PC Act could not be sustained.

The Supreme Court asked whether Ramkrishna had filed a discharge application before the trial court.

The Bench further clarified that the special court would not lose jurisdiction merely because it ultimately concludes that Ramkrishna was not a public servant.

The Court remarked:

“It’s not as if special court loses jurisdiction if they find that you’re not a public servant.”

The Supreme Court therefore declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order and left the question of whether Ramkrishna qualifies as a public servant under the PC Act to be considered by the trial court on merits.

The Supreme Court has not finally decided whether Chitra Ramkrishna is a “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court has only held that the issue can be raised before and determined by the trial court during the proceedings.