Authority: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, High Court of Delhi

Order Date: 09 July 2026 (Reserved on 26 May 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties & Relief Sought: Petitioner Chitra Ramkrishna (through senior counsel N. Hariharan) filed a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC against the Union of India & others, seeking (a) declaration that Sections 2(c)(viii) and 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) are vague, arbitrary and unconstitutional, (b) striking down or reading down those provisions insofar as they apply to private‑company officers, (c) declaration that sanction letters dated 15‑Nov‑2022 and 11‑Feb‑2023 issued by the NSE Board are ultra‑vires, (d) certiorari quashing the Special Judge’s cognizance order dated 18‑Jul‑2023, and (e) any further appropriate relief.
  • Background of NSE: National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE) incorporated in 1992 under the Companies Act, 1956; recognised as a stock exchange by SEBI in April 1993; commenced operations in 1994.
  • Petitioner’s Role: Joint Managing Director (2009‑31 Mar 2013); thereafter Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director (1 Apr 2013‑2 Dec 2016) of NSE.
  • Allegations Leading to Investigation: Complaints of misuse of NSE’s co‑location facilities during 2010‑2014; alleged conspiracy between OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. (promoted by Shri Sanjay Gupta) and certain NSE officials to obtain preferential server access, enabling OPG to log in first and receive market data ahead of others. SEBI’s Technical Advisory Committee report corroborated the exploitation and alleged bribes.
  • CBI FIR & Chargesheets: FIR dated 28‑May‑2018 (RC No. AC1‑2018‑A0011) registered at CBI/AC‑I, charging offences under IPC §§120B, 204; PC Act §§7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d); IT Act §66. Chargesheet dated 21‑Apr‑2022 filed against Chitra Ramkrishna and Anand Subramanian (Group Operating Officer & Advisor to MD) alleging criminal conspiracy, preferential access, arbitrary appointment and remuneration, and misuse of position. Supplementary chargesheet dated 18‑Aug‑2022 added further allegations of shielding system weaknesses and personal profit.
  • Sanction Orders: NSE Board, after reviewing CBI reports, passed a resolution on 19‑Jun‑2022 granting conditional sanction for prosecution; Sanction Order dated 15‑Nov‑2022 issued by Company Secretary, clarifying that the sanction does not constitute an admission that NSE personnel are public servants. A second sanction request was considered; Board resolution on 10‑Feb‑2023 led to Sanction Order dated 11‑Feb‑2023 with similar clarification.
  • Special Judge Cognizance: Special Judge (PC Act, CBI‑02) took cognizance on 18‑Jul‑2023, issuing an order summoning the petitioner under IPC §§120B, 201, 204, 420 and PC Act §§13(1)(d), 13(2) together with IT Act §§85, 66 read with §43.
  • Petitioner’s Constitutional Challenge: Claim that Sections 2(c)(viii) and 2(b) are vague, arbitrary, and cannot be applied to private‑company officers; seeks to strike down or read down.
  • Submissions – Petitioner’s Counsel: Argues that a wide interpretation would render every private employee a public servant; cites Supreme Court cases (Kartar Singh, Shreya Singhal, A.K. Roy, CBI v. Gelli) on vagueness; emphasizes NSE is a profit‑making private company with no government shareholding control; points to Articles of Association limiting duties to corporate governance; contends that the Board’s clarification that sanction does not admit public‑servant status makes the sanction orders illegal; argues that only shareholders can remove the MD, not the Board, making the sanction orders ultra‑vio.
  • Submissions – Union of India: Defends constitutionality of the challenged provisions, arguing a purposive, wide interpretation is intended to cover persons performing public duties; highlights NSE’s statutory recognition, SEBI regulation, and public‑interest functions; notes government‑controlled shareholding (LIC, SBI, IDBI, GIC) and statutory powers under the SCR Act; asserts petitioner performed public duty as MD/CEO; contends sanction orders are valid and cognizance order is proper.
  • Submissions – CBI SPP: Questions maintainability of the writ; states factual disputes must be decided by the trial court; reiterates that the definition of public servant focuses on public duty, not the nature of the employer; cites numerous Supreme Court precedents supporting a broad construction.
  • Analysis & Findings: The Court examined the historical definition of “public servant” under IPC §21, the legislative intent behind the 1988 PC Act, and the purpose‑oriented approach endorsed in cases such as P.V. Narasimha Rao, Ramesh Gelli, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, and others. It held that the definition in Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) is not vague; it requires (i) holding an “office” and (ii) being authorised or required to perform a “public duty”. The Court found that NSE, as a recognised stock exchange, performs functions of public interest under the SCR Act and SEBI’s regulatory framework, thereby qualifying its officers as performing public duties. Consequently, the petitioner, as MD & CEO, satisfies both conditions and is a “public servant” within the meaning of the PC Act.
  • Sanction Orders & Cognizance: The Court observed that the Board’s clarifications do not negate the legal validity of the sanction orders; the orders were issued by the competent authority under Section 19 of the PC Act. The Special Judge’s cognizance order was therefore lawful.
  • Final Outcome: The petition is dismissed in its entirety. The pending application is also dismissed. No order as to costs is made. The Court expressly states that its observations shall not prejudice the trial court’s factual determination.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the sanction orders dated 15‑Nov‑2022 and 11‑Feb‑2023, and affirmed the Special Judge’s cognizance order of 18‑Jul‑2023. No costs were awarded.

Topics: Anti‑Corruption Law, Public Servant Definition