The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand a Delhi High Court order dismissing former National Stock Exchange (NSE) chief Chitra Ramkrishna’s plea challenging her prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Bar & Bench reported. Ramkrishna had argued that she did not qualify as a public servant.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that Ramkrishna’s argument regarding her status as a public servant can be raised before the trial court.
“We are of the view that no error could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment,” ordered the Court. “The petitioner was the MD and CEO of NSE. The argument is that is 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 the course of the trial. Let this issue be decided by the trial court on its own merits.”
Origins of the case: SEBI probe and ‘Himalayan Yogi’
The proceedings against Ramkrishna stem from a February 11 order passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (), which found her allegedly involved in financial misdeeds related to the fixation and frequent upward revisions of compensation for another former NSE executive, Anand Subramanian.
She allegedly carried out these actions in collusion with an individual she claimed was a “Siddha Purusha.”
According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (), Subramanian, while performing a public duty to safeguard the interests of common investors, entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to confer substantial advantages upon select trading members and brokers.
Another central allegation against Ramkrishna is that she maintained frequent email contact with an unknown Himalayan Yogi, whom the CBI later alleged was Subramanian himself.
‘Public duty’ threshold under the PC Act
According to the Bar & Bench report, Ramkrishna approached the apex court after the Delhi High Court in July rejected her challenge to Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act.
Under the statute, 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. Meanwhile, Section 2(c)(viii) includes within the definition of “public servant” any person holding an office by virtue of which they are authorised or required to perform a public duty.
The High Court held that the NSE discharges a public duty and that Ramkrishna, as its MD and CEO, could not be wholly divorced from the exchange’s functions, in which the public has an interest. It had also turned down her challenge to the sanction granted for her prosecution under the PC Act.
Trial court retains jurisdiction: SC
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramkrishna, submitted that she did not hold office under a regulatory or governmental framework, and therefore, the PC Act could not be invoked against her.
He further contended that while the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could continue, proceedings under the PC Act could not be sustained.
Taking note of the arguments, the Bench enquired whether Ramkrishna had filed a discharge application. The Court also observed that the special court would not lose its jurisdiction merely if it ultimately held that she was not a public servant.
“It’s not as if the special court loses jurisdiction if they find that you’re not a public servant. You should not have invited a High Court order,” said the Court.