Chitra Ramkrishna's plea challenging her classification as a public servant is dismissed, reinforcing accountability in private sectors performing public duties.
In a landmark judgment dated July 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Chitra Ramkrishna, former CEO and Managing Director of the National Stock Exchange (NSE), challenging her classification as a "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, affirms the constitutional validity of Section 2(c)(viii) and Section 2(b) of the PC Act, which define "public servant" and "public duty," respectively.
Ramkrishna's petition sought to declare these sections vague and arbitrary, contending that the provisions unjustly extended to private individuals employed by private companies, thus violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also sought the quashing of sanction orders issued by the NSE's Board of Directors and the subsequent cognizance order by the Special Judge under the PC Act.
The case originated from allegations of misuse of NSE's co-location facilities during Ramkrishna's tenure, involving preferential access granted to certain brokers, leading to an FIR registered by the CBI. The petitioner argued that her duties at NSE were confined to corporate governance and did not constitute public duty.
The High Court, however, upheld the broader interpretation of "public servant" in the PC Act, emphasizing that the Act's objective is to widen its coverage to include individuals performing duties affecting public interest. The court noted that the NSE, as a recognized stock exchange, performs vital economic functions in public interest, thus its officials, including the petitioner, fall within the ambit of the PC Act.
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's observations in previous cases, underscoring the necessity of a wide definition to effectively curb corruption beyond traditional government offices. The court maintained that while certain provisions may require minimal latitude due to diverse situations, they are not inherently vague.
Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's contention regarding the invalidity of sanction orders, stating that such orders are subject to determination by the trial court based on evidence. The judgment also clarified that the internal management of NSE by the petitioner involves public duty, which is a matter for trial determination.
The judgment sets a precedent for accountability in private sectors performing public duties, reinforcing the PC Act's role in combating corruption across various entities. It also highlights the court's commitment to interpreting anti-corruption laws in a manner that strengthens the fight against corruption.
Bottom line:-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) upheld - Recognised Stock Exchange and its Managing Director and CEO held to perform public duty within the meaning of the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 2(c)(viii), 2(b), 19; Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 120B, 204; Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66
Chitra Ramkrishna v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937565
