Are Resolution Professionals 'public servants' for Prevention of Corruption Act proceedings? Supreme Court to examine

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a plea dealing with the question of whether a Resolution Professional of an insolvency process is a 'public servant' that can be proceeded against under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). [Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation].A vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice in an appeal against a Jharkhand High Court order from April that had declined to quash proceedings under the PC Act against the instant appellant..Section 2(c) [v] and [viii] of the Act defines public servant as persons authorised by courts to perform public duties of 'administering justice', including liquidators, among others.A Resolution Professional is appointed once a company files for bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings are initiated.They have powers of assuming responsibilities to handle the management and assets of the business, and to appoint accountants and legal staff to verify liabilities and issue legal notices where needed..In the petition before the top court, it is contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that even under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Resolution Professionals are not a public authority.Their role is not to discharge a function in which the State, the public or the community at large has interest, it is stressed. Rather,"The duty is discharged only towards the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and them alone."Further, an authorisation of an assignment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) differs from the duty of administerting justice under the PC Act, it was argued.It is contended that under Section 233 of the IBC, such professionals are given immunity from legal proceedings.Under Section 236 of the IBC, only on filing of complaints by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India can a special court take cognisnace of offences under the Code, which was not the case in the instant matter..The present appellant was appointed as a Resolution Professional by corporate debtor Adi Ispat Private Limited, after the complainant had defaulted on a loan from the State Bank of India.It is alleged that the complainant filed a frivolous case against the petitioner after the latter had pointed out to the Committee of Creditors severe instances of siphoning and misappropriation of funds by the latter..The High Court in its order had reasoned that public servants are not limited to government servants or those of instrumentalities of the State.If a Resolution Professional takes a bribe to favour a bribe, they would come under the ambit of the PC Act and the CBI's probes, it had been held..The appeal was filed through Advocate Vaibhav Niti. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Advocates Madhavi Agrawal, Madhur Mahajan, Divyanshu Agrawal and Abhimanyu Bhandari represented the petitioner..[Read order]