Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Leaves Ramkrishna’s Public-Servant Status to Trial
The Supreme Court decided not to cancel the corruption case against former NSE chief Chitra Ramkrishna.
Ramkrishna says the NSE is a private company, so she should not be treated as a public servant.
The Court said the trial court must decide that question after hearing evidence.
It also said the trial court must make its decision independently.
The Delhi High Court had earlier said that the NSE performs an important public duty.
The case concerns allegations that some brokers received special access to NSE trading systems.
It also concerns Anand Subramanian’s appointment and pay.
Investigators have examined Ramkrishna’s emails with a person described as a Himalayan yogi or Siddha Purusha.
The Supreme Court declined to quash proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against former NSE chief Chitra Ramkrishna.
The Court said the trial court must decide whether Ramkrishna qualifies as a public servant based on evidence.
Ramkrishna argued that the NSE is a private, non-government company and that she did not perform a public duty.
The Delhi High Court had held that the NSE performs a public duty and refused to interfere with her prosecution sanction.
The case involves alleged preferential broker access, Anand Subramanian’s compensation, and Ramkrishna’s communications with a purported Himalayan yogi.
- Who
- Former National Stock Exchange Managing Director and CEO Chitra Ramkrishna, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the courts hearing the case.
- What
- The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash Prevention of Corruption Act proceedings and left Ramkrishna’s public-servant status for the trial court.
- When
- The Supreme Court acted on Tuesday; the Delhi High Court had rejected Ramkrishna’s challenge in July, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India issued a relevant order on February 11, 2022.
- Where
- The proceedings are before the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, and a special trial court, and concern operations at the National Stock Exchange.
- Why
- Ramkrishna challenged the Prevention of Corruption Act proceedings, arguing that she worked for a private company and did not perform a public duty.
Ramkrishna’s Legal Position
Prosecution and Court Position
Public-servant status
Ramkrishna’s Legal Position
Ramkrishna argues that the NSE is a private company, that she did not perform a public duty, and that she should not be treated as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Prosecution and Court Position
The Delhi High Court held that the NSE performs a public duty and that its chief executive cannot be completely separated from the exchange’s public-interest functions; the Supreme Court left the final decision to the trial court.
Applicability of corruption law
Ramkrishna’s Legal Position
Her counsel argued that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not continue, although proceedings under the Indian Penal Code, now referred to in one report alongside the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, could proceed.
Prosecution and Court Position
The prosecution maintains the corruption proceedings, and the courts declined to quash them at this stage. The Supreme Court also said the special court would retain jurisdiction even if it ultimately found that Ramkrishna was not a public servant.
Alleged NSE misconduct
Ramkrishna’s Legal Position
Ramkrishna’s challenge contests the legal basis for prosecuting her over management decisions and conduct connected with NSE operations.
Prosecution and Court Position
The Central Bureau of Investigation alleges that certain brokers received preferential access to server information and less crowded servers, and that the case includes alleged wrongdoing involving Anand Subramanian and communications with a purported yogi.
- Supreme Court bench
- Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran
- Central legal issue
- Whether Ramkrishna qualifies as a public servant under Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Ramkrishna’s argument
- The NSE is a private, non-government company and she did not hold office under a government or regulatory framework
- Delhi High Court ruling
- The High Court held that whether Ramkrishna performed a public duty required evidence and refused to quash the proceedings
- Trial court direction
- The trial court must determine the public-servant issue independently and on its own merits
- Main allegations
- Preferential access for certain brokers, alleged criminal conspiracy, and decisions involving Anand Subramanian’s appointment and remuneration
- Additional investigation focus
- Ramkrishna’s communications with an individual described as a Siddha Purusha or Himalayan yogi
