NSE scam: Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Delhi HC order denying relief to Chitra Ramkrishna in PC Act case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the plea filed by former National Stock Exchange (NSE) Managing Director and CEO Chitra Ramkrishna challenging her prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) on the ground that she was not a public servant..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that Ramkrishna’s contention that she could not be treated as a public servant could 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 judgement. The petitioner was the MD and CEO of NSE. The argument is that NSE being a private/non govt 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 course of the trial. Let this issue be decided by the trial court on its own merits," ordered the Court..The case against Ramkrishna stems from a February 11 order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which found that she had allegedly been involved in financial misdeeds relating to fixation and frequent revision of compensation of another former NSE employee, Anand Subramanian.She is alleged to have done this in cahoots with someone whom she claimed to be a “Siddha Purusha."The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said that Subramanian, while performing a public duty to protect the interest of common investors, indulged in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and caused a huge advantage to various trading members/brokers.The other allegation against Ramkrishna was that she was in touch through email with a Himalayan Yogi, who the CBI later claimed to be 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) includes within the definition of “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 the NSE performs a public duty and that Ramkrishna, as its MD and CEO, could not be wholly separated from the functions of the stock exchange in which the public at large has an interest.It had also rejected her challenge to the sanction granted for her prosecution under the PC Act..During today's hearing before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, appearing for Ramkrishna, argued that she did not hold office by virtue of a regulatory or government regime and, therefore, the PC Act could not be invoked against her. He further submitted that while the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could proceed, the PC Act proceedings could not be sustained.Taking note of the submissions, the Court asked whether Ramkrishna had preferred a discharge application. It also observed that the special court would not lose jurisdiction merely because it ultimately found that Ramkrishna was not a public servant. “It’s not as if 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..[Read Live Coverage]