Chitra Ramkrishna vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 July, 2026

July 10, 2026

Delhi High Court

Chitra Ramkrishna vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 July, 2026

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:

SPONSORED

“(a) Declare that Section 2(c)(viii) and
Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 are vague, arbitrary and
unconstitutional, and are violative of Article
14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
and

(b) Strike down Section 2(c)(viii) and Section
2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
for violating Article 14 and Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, insofar as they are
sought to be made applicable to private
persons employed with a private limited
company; and

(c) In the alternative, read down and/or limit
the scope of operation of Section 2(c)(viii) r/w
Section 2(b) of the PC Act, insofar as they are
sought to be made applicable to private
persons employed with or serving as a director
of a private limited company incorporated in
India

(d) Declare that the sanction letters dated
15.11.2022 and 11.02.2023 issued by the
Board of Directors of NSE are illegal and
ultra vires the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 since the Petitioner herein is not a public
servant in terms of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988; and

(e) Issue a writ of certiorari, or in the nature
of certiorari, calling for the records of the
case and quashing the Impugned Order dated
18.07.2023 whereby the Ld. Special Judge (PC

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 2 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
Act, CBI – 02), Rouse Avenue District Court,
New Delhi has taken cognizance of offence
under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act
as against the Petitioner, and has summoned
the Petitioner as an accused in FIR No. RC /
AC1 / 2018 / A0011 dated 28.05.2018 lodged
with P.S. CBI/AC-I under Sections 120-B / 204
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections
7/12/13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
Section 66 of the Information Technology Act,
2000, and all proceedings arising therefrom;
and

(f) pass any such further order(s) as this
Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Writ Petition are
that M/s National Stock Exchange of India Limited (hereinafter
referred to as, „NSE‟) is a Recognized Stock Exchange of India and
functions as the first level regulator. It was incorporated in 1992 under
the Companies Act, 1956 and, in terms of the provisions of the
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as,
„SCR Act‟), was recognized as a Stock Exchange by the Securities
and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as, „SEBI‟) in
April 1993. It commenced its operations in 1994.

3. The petitioner was designated as the Joint Managing Director of
NSE from 2009 till 31.03.2013. With effect from 01.04.2013, she took
charge as the Chief Executive Officer („CEO‟) and Managing Director
(„MD‟) of the NSE.

4. Pursuant to complaints made against the NSE officials
regarding misuse of NSE‟s co-location facilities, which had been

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 3 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
conceptualized and implemented during the tenure of the petitioner in
the NSE, the petitioner resigned from her position on 02.12.2016.

5. Information was received by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as, „CBI‟) that during the period
2010 to 2014, when the petitioner was managing the affairs of the
NSE, Shri Sanjay Gupta, the owner and promoter of M/s OPG
Securities Pvt. Ltd. („OPG Securities‟), in conspiracy with some
unknown officials of the NSE, had abused the server architecture of
the NSE. It was alleged that certain officers/officials of the NSE were
passing information regarding switch-on time of the NSE Exchange
Servers, facilitating access to the technologically latest and least
crowded servers and providing unfair access to the NSE‟s co-location
facility to OPG Securities. This allegedly enabled OPG Securities to
be the first to login to the Exchange Servers of the NSE and receive
data feed before others. It was further alleged that OPG Securities was
also allowed to connect to the backup servers of the NSE, which had
zero load and provided better and faster access to the market feed.

6. Upon receiving complaints regarding exploitation of the
Exchange Servers, SEBI conducted an inquiry. According to the
Report of its Technical Advisory Committee, OPG Securities had
exploited the tick-by-tick architecture of NSE by consistently being
the first to log in on the Exchange Servers of the NSE during the
period 2010 to 2014. It was also alleged that bribes had been paid to
some unknown officials of NSE and SEBI for conferring undue favour
upon OPG Securities.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 4 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

7. Accordingly, on the basis of the said information, an FIR dated
28.05.2018, bearing RC No. AC1 2018 A0011, was registered by the
CBI at Police Station CBI/AC-I, under Sections 120B and 204 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, „IPC‟), Sections 7,
12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, „PC Act‟), and
Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, (hereinafter
referred to as, „IT Act‟). The FIR was registered against the suspected
persons for the offences relating to criminal conspiracy, attempt to
give and receive bribe, misuse of official position, and destroying
evidence. As per the said FIR, the suspected accused persons included
some unknown officers/officials of the SEBI and the NSE.

8. The SEBI also passed orders dated 30.04.2019 and 11.02.2022
regarding issues at the NSE relating to appointment of Mr. Anand
Subramanian as the Chief Strategic Advisor and his re-designation as
the Group Operating Officer and Advisor to MD, and fraudulent trade
practices by sharing of internal confidential information, and imposed
penalties on the petitioner.

9. After investigation, a chargesheet dated 21.04.2022 was filed by
the CBI under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the petitioner and Mr. Anand
Subramanian, who was the then Group Operating Officer and Advisor
to the Managing Director of NSE.

10. In the said chargesheet, it was alleged that the petitioner, being
a „public servant‟, had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr.
Anand Subramanian and had granted preferential access to certain

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 5 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
brokers. In furtherance thereof, information regarding switching on
time of the Exchange Servers was passed and access to the
technologically latest and least crowded servers was also being
provided. It was further alleged that the petitioner had abused her
position as the Joint MD of NSE by illegally and arbitrarily appointing
Mr. Anand Subramanian as the Chief Strategic Advisor to the MD and
by granting him disproportionate and arbitrary increase in
remuneration from time to time without taking approval of the
Nomination and Remuneration Committee of the NSE. The
chargesheet further referred to the Memorandum and Articles of
Association of NSE, and it was noted that the officials of NSE
perform a „public duty‟ and fall within the definition of “public
servant” under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act. The chargesheet also
stated that the NSE has been held to be a “public authority” under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, RTI Act) by
this Court in National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Central
Information Commission & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1513, and
as „State‟ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, by the Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma v. Delhi Stock
Exchange & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2884.

11. The provisions of the PC Act invoked in the chargesheet, that
is, Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2), relate to criminal misconduct by a
„public servant‟, and provide for the requirement of a prior sanction
for prosecution, in terms of Section 19 of the PC Act. Accordingly, a
Report was prepared by the CBI seeking sanction in terms of Section
19 of the PC Act from the competent authority in the NSE to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 6 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
prosecute the petitioner. The proceedings before the learned Trial
Court were adjourned from time-to-time for want of sanction from the
competent authority.

12. In the meanwhile, a Supplementary Chargesheet dated
18.08.2022 was also filed by the CBI under Section 120B read with
Sections 201, 204, 420 of the IPC, Sections 85, 66 read with Section
43 of the IT Act and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act, implicating the petitioner herein.

13. In the said Supplementary Chargesheet, it was alleged that the
petitioner was a key decision-maker in the implementation of co-
location facility and that it was within her knowledge that fair and
equitable access to data was not being considered during the
finalization of the design for co-location and tick-by-tick system for
data dissemination. It was further alleged that the petitioner misused
her official position to shield the inherent weaknesses of the system,
which was prone to manipulation, and allowed her co-conspirators to
illegally benefit from it by gaining faster access to data and through
access to servers with better hardware. It was also alleged that the
increase in profits and the trading volumes also caused illegal benefits
to the petitioner.

14. The Board of Directors of the NSE, upon perusing the CBI
Report and the other relevant material, and while contesting that its
officers are „public servants‟ or are covered by the PC Act, vide
resolution dated 19.06.2022, granted conditional sanction for the
prosecution of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Sanction Order dated
15.11.2022 was passed by the Company Secretary on behalf of the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 7 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
Board of Directors of the NSE. In the said Sanction Order, the Board
of Directors of the NSE, however, clarified as under:

“It is being clarified that the sanction has been
granted for the prosecution of Ms. Chitra
Ramkrishna and Mr. Anand Subramanian in
view of the positions that they held, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
and that this is not an acceptance by the
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. that any
of its personnel are public servants or that it is
covered by the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988”

15. Thereafter, another Request for Sanction was placed before the
Board of Directors of the NSE, seeking sanction to prosecute the
petitioner based on the Supplementary Chargesheet dated 18.08.2022.

16. On the basis of the Resolution dated 10.02.2023, the Board of
Directors of NSE, vide the Sanction Order dated 11.02.2023, again
accorded sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act for the prosecution
of the petitioner, subject to the following clarification:

“It is further clarified that the grant of
sanction is without prejudice to NSE’s rights,
and its contentions in pending legal
proceedings and should not be treated as
acceptance by NSE that any of its personnel,
whether former or present, are public servants
or that it is covered by the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”

17. The Sanction Orders dated 15.11.2022 and 11.02.2023 were
thereafter taken on record by the learned Trial Court, vide the orders
dated 14.02.2023 and 15.05.2023, respectively, and are in challenge
before this Court in the present Writ Petition.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 8 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

18. The present Writ Petition also challenges the order dated
18.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
whereby the learned Special Judge, after a perusal of the complaint,
witness statements and other relevant documents, took cognizance
against the petitioner and the other accused persons for the offences
punishable under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act read with Sections 201, 204 and
420 of the IPC and Sections 85, 66 read with Section 43 of the IT Act.

19. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of
Section 2(c)(viii) and Section 2(b) of the PC Act, on the ground that
the said provisions are vague, arbitrary, and unconstitutional insofar as
they are made applicable to private persons employed by a private
company.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER

20. Mr. N. Hariharan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
submits that Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the PC Act,
which define “public servant” and “public duty”, respectively, have
been impermissibly stretched by the CBI and the learned Special
Judge to bring the petitioner within purview of the PC Act. He
submits that if the definition of “public servant” is applied in the
manner adopted by the CBI, virtually every person employed in a
private enterprise would be brought within the ambit of the PC Act.

21. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the challenged
provisions are wholly vague, arbitrary and capable of misuse. He

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 9 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
submits that it is well-settled that penal provisions must be clear and
definite and must give adequate warning of the conduct which is
prohibited. If the prohibitions of an enactment are not clearly defined,
it is void for vagueness. In support, he places reliance on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab,
(1994) 3 SCC 569; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC
1; and, A.K. Roy v. Union of India & Ors.,(1982) 1 SCC 271, and of
the U.S. Supreme Court in McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25
(1931).

22. He submits that this concern has also been noticed by the
Supreme Court, and the Court has cautioned that a wide understanding
of „public servant‟ may have the effect of obliterating all distinctions
between the holder of a private office or a public office, inasmuch as,
in the present times, there is hardly any office whose duties cannot
ultimately be traced to having a bearing on public interest. In support,
he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CBI,
Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli & Ors, (2016) 3
SCC 788.

23. The learned Senior Counsel submits that insofar as the PC Act
is sought to be made applicable to private persons employed with a
Private Limited Company, Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of
the PC Act deserves to be struck down for being violative of Article
14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India or, in the alternative,
read down to not include private individuals like the petitioner.

24. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the NSE is a private
non-government company that works for profit and is managed by its

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 10 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
Board of Directors. Neither the organizational structure nor the
functions of the NSE are public in nature. He submits that the NSE
has no government shareholding, and the shareholding of entities like
LIC, SBI, IDBI Bank Ltd., General Insurance Corporation, etc. in
NSE, also does not alter its position. He submits that equity
participation of Public Sector Undertakings in the NSE does not
qualify as any financial aid by the Government and does not entitle the
Government to control the management of the NSE. In support, he
relies upon the judgments in National Textile Corporation Ltd. v.
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 695;
Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of
India & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 324; and, Electronics Corporation of
India Ltd. & Ors. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1999) 4 SCC 458.

25. He further submits that the petitioner‟s duties and functions in
the NSE were confined to the management of NSE‟s business. By
virtue of the Articles of Association of NSE, such duties include
payment of costs and expenses for the Company, opening bank
accounts, securing contracts, instituting or defending legal
proceedings, appointing managers and experts, etc. He submits that
the duties of the petitioner are essentially related to the corporate
governance of the Company and cannot be elevated to the stature of
“public duty” as defined in the PC Act.

26. He submits that the respondents have emphasised on the
significance of NSE‟s functions as a Stock Exchange. However, this
cannot determine whether its officers perform “public duty”. Relying

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 11 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Karthikeya Varma @
Kartik Varma v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker
14875, he submits that if a body or corporation exercises any function
without an obligation under existing laws, it cannot be treated as
discharge of public duty.

27. He further submits that what is required for an individual to fall
under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, is that the person occupies an
office and by virtue of that office, such person is authorised or
required to perform a public duty, that is, a duty in discharge of which
the State or the public or the community at large have an interest.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V. Narasimha
Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626, he submits that an
“office” is understood in law to mean a position to which certain
duties are attached, especially a place of trust, authority or service.
Relying on Black‟s law Dictionary, he submits that an „office‟ is an
assigned duty or function, commonly suggesting a position of trust or
authority.

28. He also points out to the SEBI Master Circular
CIR/MRD/DSA/SE/43/2010 dated 31.12.2010 on the Administration
of Stock Exchanges, as also to the Regulation 26(2) read with
Schedule II, Part-B of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock
Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2012, to submit
that the Directors of a Stock Exchange cannot interfere in the day-to-
day functioning of the Stock Exchange, and that the role of Directors
is determined by the Governing Board of a Stock Exchange.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 12 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

29. He submits that the respondents argue that the petitioner is a
public servant because the NSE performs a function of public
importance, is covered by the RTI Act, and is regulated by the SEBI.
He submits that the same does not hold any merit and does not imply
any ownership, control or aid by the Government, and is wholly
irrelevant in determining whether the petitioner would be liable for
prosecution as a “public servant” under the PC Act. In furtherance, he
relies on the judgments in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas &
Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733 and G. Udayan Dravid & Ors. v. State &
Ors., (2007) 93 DRJ 624.

30. He submits that where the Parliament intends to treat employees
of private companies as public servants, it does so by an express
deeming provision, such as by Section 46A of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949. However, there is no such provision in the present case for
the officials of the NSE.

31. The learned Senior Counsel then submits that the sanction
granted for prosecution is ex facie invalid. He submits that it is well
settled that the Sanctioning Authority must independently apply its
mind to the relevant facts, before granting sanction to prosecute. In
furtherance, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014)
14 SCC 295. He submits that the Board of Directors of the NSE, while
granting the sanction to prosecute the petitioner, categorically stated
that the NSE‟s employees are not “public servant” and that the NSE
itself is not a public authority under the PC Act. He submits that
having taken this position, it was not open to the Board of Directors of

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 13 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
the NSE to grant the purported sanction. He further submits that the
learned Special Judge erred in taking cognizance against the petitioner
despite this caveat by the Board of Directors of the NSE.

32. He further submits that the impugned Sanction Order and the
impugned cognizance order also deserve to be quashed, as they are
based on the decision of this Court in National Stock Exchange of
India Ltd. v. Central Information Commission & Ors.,
2010:DHC:2042, which declares NSE to be a public authority under
the RTI Act. He submits that a Division Bench of this Court, in an
appeal, being LPA 315/2010, titled “National Stock Exchange of
India Ltd. v. Central Information Commission & Ors.“, has
subsequently stayed this judgment, and the stay was made absolute
vide an order dated 21.08.2012. The appeal remains pending till date.

33. He also submits that the contention of the respondents that the
validity of a Sanction Order can only be agitated during trial, is not
applicable to the present circumstances where the Sanction Order is ex
facie illegal. He submits that in terms of Section 19 of the PC Act,
sanction for prosecution can be granted only by the “authority
competent to remove him from his office”. He submits that as per the
Memorandum and Articles of Association, the authority competent to
remove the petitioner from her office is the shareholders of NSE by
way of an ordinary resolution requiring special notice. However, the
impugned Sanction Orders are passed by the Board of Directors of the
NSE, thereby making them illegal.

34. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the order
dated 09.02.2023 passed by this Court in Bail Application No.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 14 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
2919/2022, titled “Chitra Ramkrishna v. Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate“, wherein, while granting bail to the
petitioner in another case involving offences under the PC Act, this
Court observed that the NSE is not a public authority and that the
petitioner cannot be treated as a public servant.

35. Lastly, he submits that the reliance placed in the chargesheets
on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma (supra) is
misconceived. He submits that the said decision arose in the context of
an employment dispute and did not decide whether the petitioner
therein or the Delhi Stock Exchange is a „public servant‟ or „public
authority‟ under the PC Act.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- UNION
OF INDIA

36. Mr. Amit Tiwari, learned CGSC appearing for the Union of
India, submits that the challenge to the constitutional validity of
Section 2(c)(viii) and Section 2(b) of the PC Act is without merit and
is an attempt to evade accountability for actions that fall within the
purview of the PC Act. He submits that the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Prevention of Corruption Bill, 1987 shows that the
intent of the amendment of the PC Act is to widen the coverage of the
anti-corruption laws. The expressions “public servant” and “public
duty” must, therefore, be given a broad interpretation, so as to include
those who may not be public servants in the traditional sense, but
whose actions affect the public at large. He further submits that it is
the duty of the Courts that the anti-corruption laws are interpreted and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 15 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
worked in such a manner as to strengthen the fight against corruption.
In support, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 64
and of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Alford, 274 U.S.
264 (1927).

37. He submits that the Mischief Rule of interpretation ought to be
followed in the present case. He submits that the same provides for a
purposive interpretation by taking into consideration the defect that
the legislation is seeking to remedy.

38. He submits that Section 2(c)(viii) and Section 2(b) of the PC
Act are clear and well-defined and are designed to cover a broad
spectrum of individuals performing duties that affect public interest,
ensuring that those in position of influence and responsibility, are held
accountable for their actions. In support, he relies on the judgments of
the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ram
Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88; Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v.
P. Venku Reddy, (2002) 7 SCC 631; Ramesh Gelli (supra);
Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (supra); and Aman Bhatia v. State
(GNCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 618.

39. He submits that the NSE is a Stock Exchange recognized by the
SEBI under Section 4 of the SCR Act. He points out that Section 5 of
the SCR Act empowers the Central Government to withdraw such
recognition in the interest of trade or in public interest. He submits
that this statutory framework itself shows the public character of the
functions performed by the NSE and necessitates that the officials of
the NSE be accountable under the PC Act.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 16 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

40. He further submits that the public interest objectives of the NSE
are also highlighted in its Memorandum of Association, which
requires the officials of NSE to perform their functions in the interest
of the public and with a high standard of integrity, honor, transparency
and openness.

41. He submits that the petitioner, being the MD and CEO of NSE
at the relevant time, held an important position which significantly
impacted the public interest and financial markets. The duties
performed by her, therefore, amounted to public duty and brought her
within the ambit of “public servant”.

42. He submits that the contention of the petitioner that the NSE
works for profit and is not a Government Company, has no
implication on the applicability of the definition of “public servant”

under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act on the petitioner, since the test
is of the nature of the duty performed and not merely the character of
the entity.

43. He submits that the Sanction Order, FIR, and the chargesheets
are based on comprehensive evidence and factual grounds and,
therefore, do not deserve to be quashed.

44. He further submits that the caveat in the Sanction Order to the
effect that NSE is not covered by the provisions of the PC Act, has no
bearing on classifying the petitioner as a “public servant” in law. In
furtherance of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra).

45. He contends that the prosecution of the petitioner under PC Act
is valid, and that the classification of the petitioner as a “public

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 17 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
servant” is consistent with the scheme and intent of the PC Act. He
submits that, therefore, the present Writ Petition deserves to be
dismissed, and the impugned chargesheets, Sanction Orders and the
order of the learned Special Judge taking cognizance, deserve to be
upheld.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED SPP FOR THE
RESPONDENT-CBI

46. Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, the learned SPP for the CBI,
challenges the maintainability of the present petition. He submits that
though the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of
certain provisions of the PC Act, she has also sought quashing of the
cognizance order dated 18.07.2023 and the Sanction Orders dated
15.11.2023 and 11.02.2023. He submits that the petitioner cannot be
permitted to challenge the said orders under the garb of challenging
the constitutional validity of the provisions of the PC Act. He submits
that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction in a Writ Petition
challenging constitutional validity of a provision, cannot go into the
merits and demerits of a case on merit. Any challenge, either to the
order of cognizance or to the Sanction Order, would have to be raised
before an appropriate Bench of this Court and in other appropriate
proceedings.

47. He further submits that the petitioner has raised several disputed
questions of fact and triable issues. Such questions, he submits, will
have to be examined by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate
stage, and cannot be determined in the present proceedings.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 18 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

48. Without prejudice to his objections on maintainability, the
learned SPP submits that no case for interference is made out in the
present petition. He submits that at the stage of cognizance, the Court
is only required to consider whether the allegations made and the
material placed on record disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the accused. He submits that, in the present case, learned
Special Judge has, after perusing the chargesheets, statement of
witnesses and the other relevant documents, rightly taken cognizance
against the petitioner.

49. He submits that the definition of “public servant” and “public
duty” under the PC Act indicate that the aim of the PC Act is to shift
the focus from those who were traditionally called public officials to
those who perform public duties. The focus of the Act is not on the
position held by a person, but on the public duty being performed by
such person. He submits that, accordingly, for prosecution under the
PC Act, it is not relevant whether NSE is a public authority or not;
what is relevant is whether the petitioner was performing a “public
duty” and, therefore, fell within the definition of “public servant”. In
furtherance, he places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court
in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, AIR 2020 SC
2203; Ramesh Gelli (supra); Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency
Private Limited & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16
SCC 299; and State through Lokayukta Police, Raichur v. C.N.
Manjunath, (2017) 11 SCC 361, and of the Jharkhand High Court in
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti
Corruption Bureau, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 394.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 19 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

50. He submits that the NSE was established to regulate the Stock
Exchange and to bring the Indian Securities Market at par with the
global standards. The duties performed by the officials of the NSE
have far-reaching impact on the economy of the country and on the
members of public who invest in the stock market. Therefore, the
officials of NSE perform “public duty” within the meaning of Section
2(b) of the PC Act and would be regarded as “public servants” under
Section 2(c) thereof. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2013) 6 SCC 452.

51. The learned SPP also relies upon the Memorandum of
Association of NSE to highlight that it provides that the object of the
NSE, inter alia, is to facilitate, promote, assist, regulate and manage,
in public interest, dealings in securities of all kinds to support
development, and promote and maintain a healthy market in the best
interest of the investors, the general public and the economy. He also
relies on the letter dated 05.03.2022 issued by the Secretary, Ministry
of Finance, which provides that the officials of the NSE perform
public duty for protecting common interests of the investors. He
further submits that the shareholding of NSE was partly held by the
Government controlled entities like LIC, IDBI, GIC, etc. and partly by
private entities. Upto 31.03.2015, government controlled entities had
approximately 50.32% shareholding in the NSE. The learned SPP
submits that this shows that the petitioner was a “public servant”

under the PC Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Brijlal Sadasukh Modani,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 20 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
AIR 2016 SC 1377, he submits even a sprinkle of aid by the
government will bring an employee within the definition of “public
servant”.

52. He submits that the NSE is regulated by the SEBI, which
exercises supervisory and regulatory control over the NSE by its
Board of Directors, which is controlled by the government. He
submits that under Section 11(4)(c) of the Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as „SEBI Act‟), the
Board of Directors of SEBI is empowered to suspend any office-
bearer of a Stock Exchange or self-regulatory organization from
holding such position. In terms of Regulation 25 of the Securities
Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations)
Regulations, 2012, even appointment of an MD of a Recognised Stock
Exchange (like NSE) has to be with prior approval of the Board of
SEBI. He submits that in view thereof, the NSE cannot be said to be
akin to other private companies, and the office bearers of Stock
Exchanges would be well within the scope of Section 2(b) of the PC
Act.

53. He submits that a Stock Exchange performs public function and
is a statutory body. It is also considered to be „State‟ within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He places reliance
on the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.C. Sharma v. Delhi
Stock Exchange & Ors. (supra); Brijlal Sadasukh Modani (supra);
Binny Ltd. & Anr. v. V. Sadasivan & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 657; Delhi
Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 21 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
New Delhi, AIR 1997 SC 2095; and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1628.

54. As regards the challenge to the Sanction Orders is concerned,
the learned SPP submits that the same are valid since they have been
issued by the Competent Authority. He submits that the Board of
Directors is competent to remove the petitioner from the NSE while
she was acting as MD and CEO. He contends that the petitioner‟s
submission that she could only be removed by the shareholders of
NSE and that the Board was incompetent to remove her and issue
sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, is incorrect.

55. The learned SPP submits that the impugned Sanction Orders set
out the material facts, the offences alleged, and the material
considered by the competent Sanctioning Authority. He submits that
the Orders also show due application of mind. Further, as per Section
114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there raises a presumption
that the official acts have been regularly performed. Therefore, the
Sanction Orders shall be treated as valid and properly issued, unless
the contrary is established in accordance with law. In support, he
places reliance on the judgments in Central Bureau of Investigation
& Ors. v. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal & Anr., (2020) 17 SCC
664; State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri & Ors., AIR
1996 SC 722; Santosh Kumar Jha v. Union of India & Ors.,
2011:DHC:5341; Parkash Singh Badal & Anr. v. State of Punjab &
Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1274; Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport
Authority of India & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 532; State of Bihar & Ors.
v. Rajmangal Ram, (2014) 11 SCC 388; Ashok Kumar Aggarwal

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 22 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
(supra); and, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. v.
Ashok Kumar Aswal & Anr., (2015) 16 SCC 163.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

56. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.

57. Prior to the enactment of the PC Act, the law relating to
prevention of corruption was governed by the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “1947 Act”).
Section 2 of the said Act provided that for the purposes of the said
Act, “public servant” would mean a public servant as defined under
Section 21 of the IPC. Section 21 of the IPC, in turn, defined “public
servant” as follows:

“21. „Public servant‟.–The words „public
servant‟ denote a person falling under any of
the descriptions hereinafter following,
namely:-

First.–[Repealed by the Adaptation of Laws
Order, 1950.]
Second.–Every Commissioned Officer in the
Military, Naval or Air Forces of India;
Third.–Every Judge including any person
empowered by law to discharge, whether by
himself or as a member of any body of
persons, any adjudicatory functions;
Fourth.–Every officer of a court of justice
(including a liquidator, receiver or
commissioner) whose duty it is, as such
officer, to investigate or report on any matter
of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or
keep any document, or to take charge or
dispose of any property, or to execute any
judicial process, or to administer any oath, or
to interpret, or to preserve order in the court,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 23 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
and every person specially authorised by a
Court of Justice to perform any of such duties;
Fifth.–Every juryman, assessor, or member of
a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or
public servant;

Sixth.–Every arbitrator or other person to
whom any cause or matter has been referred
for decision or report by any Court of Justice,
or by any other competent public authority;
Seventh.–Every person who holds any office
by virtue of which he is empowered to place or
keep any person in confinement;

Eighth.–Every officer of the Government
whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent
offences, to give information of offences, to
bring offenders to justice, or to protect the
public health, safety or convenience;
Ninth.–Every officer whose duty it is as such
officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any
property on behalf of the Government, or to
make any survey, assessment or contract on
behalf of the Government, or to execute any
revenue-process, or to investigate, or to
report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary
interests of the Government, or to make,
authenticate or keep any document relating to
the pecuniary interests of the Government, or
to prevent the infraction of any law for the
protection of the pecuniary interests of the
Government;

Tenth.–Every officer whose duty it is, as such
officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any
property, to make any survey or assessment or
to levy any rate or tax for any secular common
purpose of any village, town or district, or to
make, authenticate or keep any document for
the ascertaining of the rights of the people of
any village, town or district;

Eleventh.–Every person who holds any office
by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare,
publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or
to conduct an election or part of an election;
Twelfth.–Every person–

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 24 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

(a) in the service or pay of the Government or
remunerated by fees or commission for the
performance of any public duty by the
Government;

(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a
corporation established by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act or a Government
company as defined in Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).”

58. Finding the above definition to be restrictive, the Prevention of
Corruption Bill, 1987 was introduced in the Parliament. During the
debate on the Bill, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Minister of State
in the Ministry of Home Affairs, explained one of the salient features
of the Bill to be the widening of the definition of the expression
“public servant” so as to include, inter alia, the office bearers of
Registered Cooperative Societies which receive or have received
financial aid from the Central or the State Governments, the officials
and employees of universities and the examiners appointed by
universities or other public authorities for conducting examinations,
and the office bearers or employees of educational, scientific, social,
cultural and other institutions established, funded or aided by the
Central or State Governments.

59. Even the „Statement of Objects and Reasons‟ to the PC Act
emphasises one of the objects of the Act is to make the existing anti-
corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and by
strengthening their provisions. It specifically states that the
amendment envisages widening the scope of the definition of the
expression “public servant”.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 25 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

60. In P.V. Narasimha Rao (supra), the Supreme Court, while
considering whether a Member of Parliament or a Member of State
Legislature would fall within the definition of “public servant”, as
defined in the PC Act, held that although the answers given by the
mover of the Bill in Parliament cannot govern the interpretation of a
statute, if its provisions are otherwise clear and unambiguous, they
serve the purpose of finding the mischief which the provision sought
to address and remedy. Further, relying upon the Statement of Objects
and Reasons to the PC Act, the Supreme Court held that the Members
of Parliament and Members of State Legislature will fall within the
definition of “public servant” under the PC Act. The relevant findings
from the said judgment are as under:

“80. It would thus be seen that as per the
decisions of this Court the statement of the
Minister who had moved the Bill in Parliament
can be looked at to ascertain the mischief
sought to be remedied by the legislation and
the object and purpose for which the
legislation is enacted. The statement of the
Minister who had moved the Bill in Parliament
is not taken into account for the purpose of
interpreting the provisions of the enactment.

The decision in Pepper v. Hart permits
reference to the statement of the Minister or
other promoter of the Bill as an aid to
construction of legislation which is ambiguous
or obscure or the literal meaning of which
leads to an absurdity provided the statement
relied upon clearly discloses the mischief
aimed at or the legislative intention lying
behind the ambiguous or obscure words and
that such a statement of the Minister must be
clear and unambiguous. This rule of
construction laid in Pepper v. Harthas no
application in the present case because sub-
clause (viii) of Section 2(c) of the 1988 Act

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 26 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
cannot be said to be ambiguous or obscure nor
can it be said that the literal meaning of the
said clause leads to any absurdity.

xxx

82. Having regard to the object of the 1988
Act as indicated in the Statement of Objects
and Reasons, namely, to widen the scope of the
definition of the expression “public servant”,
which is sought to be achieved by introducing
the definition of “public duty” in Section 2(b)
and the definition of “public servant” in
Section 2(c) which enlarges the scope of the
existing definition of public servant contained
in Section 21 IPC, we do not find any
justification for restricting the scope of the
wide words used in sub-clause (viii) of Section
2(c) in the 1988 Act on the basis of the
statement of the Minister so as to exclude
Members of Parliament and Members of the
State Legislatures. In our opinion the words
used in sub-clause (viii) of Section 2(c) are
clear and unambiguous and they cannot be cut
down on the basis of the statement made by the
Minister while piloting the Bill in
Parliament.”

61. In Ramesh Gelli (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering
the question whether the Chairman, Director, or an Officer of a Private
Bank can be said to be a “public servant” for prosecution for an
offence punishable under the PC Act, held as under:

“15. From the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the PC Bill it is clear that the Act
was intended to make the anti-corruption law
more effective by widening its coverage. It is
also clear that the Bill was introduced to
widen the scope of the definition of “public
servant”. Before the PC Act, 1988, it was the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and
Sections 161 to 165-A in Chapter IX IPC
which were governing the field of law relating
to prevention of corruption. Parliament
repealed the Prevention of Corruption Act,

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 27 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
1947 and also omitted Sections 161 to 165-A
IPC as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of
the PC Act, 1988. Since a new definition of
“public servant” is given under the PC Act,
1988, it is not necessary here to reproduce the
definition of “public servant” given in Section
21 IPC.

xxx

27. In the light of law laid down by this Court
as above, it is clear that object of enactment of
the PC Act, 1988, was to make the anti-
corruption law more effective and widen its
coverage. In view of the definition of “public
servant” in Section 46-A of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 as amended the
Managing Director and Executive Director of
a banking company operating under the
licence issued by Reserve Bank of India, were
already public servants, as such they cannot
be excluded from the definition of “public
servant”. We are of the view that over the
general definition of “public servant” given in
Section 21 IPC, it is the definition of “public
servant” given in the PC Act, 1988, read with
Section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act,
which holds the field for the purposes of
offences under the said Act. For banking
business what cannot be forgotten is Section
46-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and
merely for the reason that Sections 161 to 165-
A IPC have been repealed by the PC Act,
1988, relevance of Section 46-A of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949, is not lost.”

62. In his concurring opinion, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, held as under:

“36. While there can be no manner of doubt
that in the Objects and Reasons stated for
enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 it has been made more than clear that
the Act, inter alia, envisages widening of the
scope of the definition of “public servant”,
nevertheless, the mere performance of public
duties by the holder of any office cannot bring

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 28 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
the incumbent within the meaning of the
expression “public servant” as contained in
Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The broad
definition of “public duty” contained in
Section 2(b) would be capable of
encompassing any duty attached to any office
inasmuch as in the contemporary scenario
there is hardly any office whose duties cannot,
in the last resort, be traced to having a
bearing on public interest or the interest of the
community at large. Such a wide
understanding of the definition of “public
servant” may have the effect of obliterating all
distinctions between the holder of a private
office or a public office which, in my
considered view, ought to be maintained.
Therefore, according to me, it would be more
reasonable to understand the expression
“public servant” by reference to the office and
the duties performed in connection therewith
to be of a public character.”

63. We shall now quote Section 2(c) of the PC Act, which defines
“public servant”, and Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines “public
duty”, as under:

“2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires,–

xxxx

(b) “public duty” means a duty in the
discharge of which the State, the public or the
community at large has an interest;

Explanation.–In this clause “State” includes
a corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, or an
authority or a body owned or controlled or
aided by the Government or a Government
company as defined in Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(i) any person in the service or pay of the
Government or remunerated by the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 29 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
Government by fees or commission for the
performance of any public duty;

(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local
authority;

(iii) any person in the service or pay of a
corporation established by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a
body owned or controlled or aided by the
Government or a Government company as
defined in section 617 of the Companies Act,
1956 (1 of 1956);

(iv) any Judge, including any person
empowered by law to discharge, whether by
himself or as a member of any body of
persons, any adjudicatory functions;

(v) any person authorised by a court of justice
to perform any duty, in connection with the
administration of justice, including a
liquidator, receiver or commissioner
appointed by such court;

(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom
any cause or matter has been referred for
decision or report by a court of justice or by a
competent public authority;

(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue
of which he is empowered to prepare, publish,
maintain or revise an electoral roll or to
conduct an election or part of an election;

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue
of which he is authorised or required to
perform any public duty;

(ix) any person who is the president, secretary
or other office-bearer of a registered co-

operative society engaged in agriculture,
industry, trade or banking, receiving or having
received any financial aid from the Central
Government or a State Government or from
any corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act, or any
authority or body owned or controlled or
aided by the Government or a Government
company as defined in section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(x) any person who is a chairman, member or
employee of any Service Commission or

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 30 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
Board, by whatever name called, or a member
of any selection committee appointed by such
Commission or Board for the conduct of any
examination or making any selection on behalf
of such Commission or Board;

(xi) any person who is a Vice-Chairman or
member of any governing body, professor,
reader, lecturer or any other teacher or
employee, by whatever designation called, of
any University and any person whose services
have been availed of by a University or any
other public authority in connection with
holding or conducting examinations;

(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an
employee of an educational, scientific, social,
cultural or other institution, in whatever
manner established, receiving or having
received any financial assistance from the
Central Government or any State Government,
or local or other public authority.

xxxx
Explanation 1.–Persons falling under any of
the above sub-clauses are public servants,
whether appointed by the Government or not.

Explanation 2.–Wherever the words “public
servant” occur, they shall be understood of
every person who is in actual possession of the
situation of a public servant, whatever legal
defect there may be in his right to hold that
situation.”

64. As the present petition challenges only Section 2(c)(viii) read
with Section 2(b) of the PC Act, we shall confine our discussion to the
said provisions.

65. Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act provides that any person who
holds an „office‟, by virtue of which he is authorised or required to
perform any „public duty‟, shall be a “public servant”. Therefore, for a
person to fall within the ambit of Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, such
person must satisfy two conditions: (i) the person must hold an

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 31 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
„office‟; and (ii) by virtue of such office, he must be authorised or
required to perform a „public duty‟.

66. “Public duty”, in turn, is defined under Section 2(b) of the PC
Act to mean a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or
the community at large has an interest.

67. As noted hereinabove, the primary submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the above definition of “public
servant” is extremely vague and, therefore, is liable to be struck down
or, in the alternative, read down.

68. While there can be no caveat to the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, in criminal jurisprudence,
vagueness and consequent uncertainty in a penal provision may itself
render the provision unreasonable and violative of the Fundamental
Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, at the
same time, it must be kept in mind that certain provisions may not be
capable of a precise definition. The difficulty in framing a precise
definition, where an infinite variety of situations may arise and cannot
be comprehended, cannot be held to be hit by the evil of vagueness
and uncertainty. Putting them in a strait-jacket definition may, in fact,
rob them of their intended amplitude and rob the executive of the
minimal latitude that it must be conferred with in order to make the
laws effective, keeping in view its object and purpose.

69. In A.K. Roy (supra), a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme
Court explained this delicate balance to be maintained by the
legislature, as under:

“61. In making these submissions counsel

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 32 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
seem to us to have overstated their case by
adopting an unrealistic attitude. It is true that
the vagueness and the consequent uncertainty
of a law of preventive detention bears upon the
unreasonableness of that law as much as the
uncertainty of a punitive law like the Penal
Code does. A person cannot be deprived of his
liberty by a law which is nebulous and
uncertain in its definition and application. But
in considering the question whether the
expressions aforesaid which are used in
Section 3 of the Act are of that character, we
must have regard to the consideration whether
the concepts embodied in those expressions
are at all capable of a precise definition. The
fact that some definition or the other can be
formulated of an expression does not mean
that the definition can necessarily give
certainty to that expression. The British
Parliament has defined the term ‘terrorism’ in
Section 28 of the Act of 1973 to mean “the use
of violence for political ends”, which, by
definition, includes “any use of violence for the
purpose of putting the public or any section of
the public in fear”. The phrase ‘political ends’
is itself of an uncertain character and
comprehends within its scope a variety of
nebulous situations. Similarly, the definitions
contained in Section 8(3) of the Jammu &
Kashmir Act of 1978 themselves depend upon
the meaning of concepts like “overawe the
government”. The formulation of definitions
cannot be a panacea to the evil of vagueness
and uncertainty. We do not, of course, suggest
that the legislature should not attempt to
define or at least to indicate the contours of
expressions, by the use of which people are
sought to be deprived of their liberty. The
impossibility of framing a definition with
mathematical precision cannot either justify
the use of vague expressions or the total
failure to frame any definition at all which can
furnish, by its inclusiveness at least, a safe
guideline for understanding the meaning of the
expressions used by the legislature. But the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 33 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
point to note is that there are expressions
which inherently comprehend such an infinite
variety of situations that definitions, instead of
lending to them a definite meaning, can only
succeed either in robbing them of their
intended amplitude or in making it necessary
to frame further definitions of the terms
defined. Acts prejudicial to the ‘defence of
India’, ‘security of India’, ‘security of the State’,
and ‘relations of India with foreign powers’
are concepts of that nature which are difficult
to encase within the strait-jacket of a
definition. If it is permissible to the legislature
to enact laws of preventive detention, a certain
amount of minimal latitude has to be conceded
to it in order to make those laws effective. That
we consider to be a realistic approach to the
situation. An administrator acting bona fide,
or a court faced with the question as to
whether certain acts fall within the mischief of
the aforesaid expressions used in Section 3,
will be able to find an acceptable answer
either way. In other words, though an
expression may appear in cold print to be
vague and uncertain, it may not be difficult to
apply it to life’s practical realities. This
process undoubtedly involves the possibility of
error but then, there is hardly any area of
adjudicative process which does not involve
that possibility.

62. The requirement that crimes must be
defined with appropriate definiteness is
regarded as a fundamental concept in criminal
law and must now be regarded as a pervading
theme of our Constitution since the decision in
Maneka Gandhi. The underlying principle is
that every person is entitled to be informed as
to what the State commands or forbids and
that the life and liberty of a person cannot be
put in peril on an ambiguity. However, even in
the domain of criminal law, the processes of
which can result in the taking away of life
itself, no more than a reasonable degree of
certainty has to be accepted as a fact. Neither
the criminal law nor the Constitution requires

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 34 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
the application of impossible standards and
therefore, what is expected is that the
language of the law must contain an adequate
warning of the conduct which may fall within
the proscribed area, when measured by
common understanding. In criminal law, the
legislature frequently uses vague expressions
like ‘bring into hatred or contempt’, or
‘maintenance of harmony between different
religious groups’, or ‘likely to cause
disharmony or… hatred or ill will’, or
‘annoyance to the public’ [see Sections 124-A,
153-A(1)(b), 153-B(1)(c), and 268 of the Penal
Code]. These expressions, though they are
difficult to define, do not elude a just
application to practical situations. The use of
language carries with it the inconvenience of
the imperfections of language.”

70. We now need to consider whether the definition of “public
servant” under Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the PC Act
is so vague and uncertain so as to render it unconstitutional. We do not
find the provision to be so.

71. In Ram Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, while emphasizing
upon the menace of corruption sought to be addressed by the PC Act,
observed that the Act was enacted to deal with public servants, not as
understood in common parlance but as specifically defined in the Act.
The Act was intended to make effective provisions for prevention of
bribery and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a
social legislation intended to curb illegal activities of the public
servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its
object.

72. In P. Venku Reddy (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that
the PC Act contains a very wide definition of “public servant”. It is

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 35 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
meant to effectively curb bribery and corruption, not only in
government establishments and departments, but also in other semi-
governmental authorities, bodies and their departments where the
public employees are entrusted with public duties. It was held that the
Court is required to adopt a purposive approach while construing the
definition of “public servant” under the PC Act, and to give effect to
the intention of the legislature. The term “public servant”, therefore,
deserves a wider construction. We quote from the judgment as under:

“9. It cannot be lost sight of that the 1988 Act,
as its predecessor, that is, the repealed Act of
1947 on the same subject, was brought into
force with the avowed purpose of effective
prevention of bribery and corruption. The Act
of 1988 which repeals and replaces the Act of
1947 contains a very wide definition of “public
servant” in clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988
Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
contained in the Bill by which the Act was
introduced in the legislature throws light on
the intention of the legislature in providing a
very comprehensive definition of the words
“public servant”. Para 3 of the Statement of
Objects and Reasons reads:

“3. The Bill, inter alia, envisages widening
the scope of the definition of the expression
‘public servant’, incorporation of offences
under Sections 161 to 165-A of the Penal
Code, 1860, enhancement of penalties
provided for these offences and
incorporation of a provision that the order
of the trial court upholding the grant of
sanction for prosecution would be final if it
has not already been challenged and the
trial has commenced. In order to expedite
the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day
trial of cases and prohibitory provisions
with regard to grant of stay and exercise of
powers of revision on interlocutory orders

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 36 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
have also been included.”

10. Clause 2 of the Notes on Clauses in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 2, further clarifies the legislative intent
thus:

“2. This clause defines the expressions used
in the Bill. Clause 2(c) defines ‘public
servant’. In the existing definition the
emphasis is on the authority employing and
the authority remunerating. In the proposed
definition the emphasis is on public duty.
The definition of „election’ is based on the
definition of this expression in the Penal
Code, 1860.”

11. Under the repealed Act of 1947 as
provided in Section 2 of the 1988 Act, the
definition of “public servant” was restricted to
“public servants” as defined in Section 21 of
the Penal Code, 1860. In order to curb
effectively bribery and corruption not only in
government establishments and departments
but also in other semi-governmental
authorities and bodies andtheir departments
where the employees are entrusted with public
duty, a comprehensive definition of “public
servant” has been given in clause (c) of
Section 2 of the 1988 Act.

12. In construing the definition of “public
servant” in clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988
Act, the court is required to adopt a purposive
approach as would give effect to the intention
of the legislature. In that view the Statement of
Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill
leading to the passing of the Act can be taken
assistance of. It gives the background in which
the legislation was enacted. The present Act,
with a much wider definition of “public
servant”, was brought in force to purify public
administration. When the legislature has used
such a comprehensive definition of “public
servant” to achieve the purpose of punishing
and curbing growing corruption in
government and semi-government
departments, it would be appropriate not to
limit the contents of the definition clause by

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 37 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
construction which would be against the spirit
of the statute. The definition of “public
servant”, therefore, deserves a wide
construction. (See State of M.P. v. Shri Ram
Singh.)”

73. In Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (supra), the Supreme Court
re-emphasised the above principles while further adding that in case
two views are possible, the Court should adopt and accept the one
which seeks to eradicate corruption over the one which seeks to
perpetuate it. We quote from the Judgment as under:

“25. However, we are concerned herein with
interpreting the provisions of the PC Act.
There is no dispute that corruption in India is
pervasive. Its impact on the nation is more
pronounced, due to the fact that India is still a
developing economy. Presently, it can be
stated that corruption in India has become an
issue which affects all walks of life. In this
context, we must state that although anti-
corruption laws are fairly stringent in India,
the percolation and enforcement of the same
are sometimes criticised as being ineffective.
Due to this, the constitutional aspirations of
economic and social justice are sacrificed on a
daily basis. It is in the above context that we
need to resolve the issues concerned herein.

26. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan
Singh, this Court observed : (SCC p. 100, para

68)
“68. Today, corruption in our country
not only poses a grave danger to the
concept of constitutional governance, it
also threatens the very foundation of Indian
democracy and the rule of law. The
magnitude of corruption in our public life is
incompatible with the concept of a socialist
secular democratic republic. It cannot be
disputed that where corruption begins all

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 38 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
rights end. Corruption devalues human
rights, chokes development and undermines
justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which
are the core values in our Preambular
vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is
that any anti-corruption law has to be
interpreted and worked out in such a
fashion as to strengthen the fight against
corruption. That is to say in a situation
where two constructions are eminently
reasonable, the Court has to accept the one
that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one
which seeks to perpetuate it.

xxx

44. As discussed earlier, the object of the
PC Act was not only to prevent the social evil
of bribery and corruption, but also to make the
same applicable to individuals who might
conventionally not be considered public
servants. The purpose under the PC Act was to
shift focus from those who are traditionally
called public officials, to those individuals
who perform public duties. Keeping the same
in mind, as rightly submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant State, it
cannot be stated that a “deemed university”

and the officials therein, perform any less or
any different a public duty, than those
performed by a university simpliciter, and the
officials therein.”

74. Applying the above principles, recently in Aman Bhatia
(supra), the Supreme Court, while considering the issue as to whether
a Stamp Vendor is a public servant for the purposes of the PC Act or
not, re-emphasised that the PC Act contains a much wider definition
of „public servant‟ as compared to one defined under the 1947 Act in
order to purify public administration and in order to curb bribery and
corruption not only in government establishments but also in other

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 39 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
semi-governmental authorities and bodies and their departments where
the employees are entrusted with public duty. It was emphasised that,
therefore, the definition of „public servant‟ deserves a wide and
purposive construction as would give effect to the intention of the
legislature. We quote from the Judgment as under:

“12. When the legislature has used such a
comprehensive definition of “public servant”

to achieve the purpose of punishing and
curbing growing corruption in government
and semi-government departments, it would be
appropriate not to limit the contents of the
definition clause by a construction which
would be against the spirit of the statute. The
definition of “public servant”, therefore,
deserves a wide and purposive construction. In
construing the definition of “public servant”

in Section 2(c) of the PC Act, the Court is
required to adopt a purposive approach as
would give effect to the intention of the
legislature.

xxx

39. The interpretation of a definition should
not only avoid being repugnant to the context
but it should also be interpreted to achieve the
purpose which is sought to be served by the
statute. A construction which would defeat or
may likely defeat the purpose of the Act has to
be ignored and not accepted. A definition, like
any other word in a statute, has to be read in
the light of the context and scheme of the Act.

xxx

43. Where the wording of a statutory
provision indicates that the legislature has
consciously attributed varying degrees of
significance to different interpretative
elements such as the nature of the relationship
or the duty performed, the courts are obliged
to adhere to that legislative determination and
interpret the provision in a manner that
reflects the intended statutory scheme. While
interpreting a statute, it is essential not only to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 40 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
consider the words used but also to examine
the Statement of Objects and Reasons, as it
provides the background against which the
legislation was enacted. The legislature
introduced a comprehensive definition of
“public servant” with the intent to punish and
curb the menace of corruption. In such
circumstances, it would be improper to
construe the definition in a manner that limits
its scope, thereby defeating the very essence
and purpose of the statute.

44. It is an important rule of interpretation
that every interpretation of a statute must be
undertaken by considering the statute in its
entirety, the prior state of the law, other
statutes in pari materia, the general scope and
purpose of the legislation, and the mischief
that the legislature intended to address.”

75. Keeping in view the above object of the PC Act, we do not find
any vagueness in the definition of “public servant” as defined in
Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the PC Act. As observed
hereinabove, the provision is specific and applies to a person who
holds an „office‟ by virtue of which he is empowered to perform a
„public duty‟, that is, a duty in the discharge of which the State, the
public or the community at large has an interest. It has two specific
preconditions: (i) holding of an office; and (ii) performance of a public
duty by virtue of such office. It would have to be determined in each
case whether the person, who has been charged under the PC Act,
meets the above two preconditions. However, merely because every
such „office‟ has not been mentioned in Section 2(c) of the PC Act,
the said provision cannot be termed as vague or uncertain, so as to be
violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 41 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

76. In P.V. Narasimha Rao (supra), the above principle was
emphasised, while also considering the term „office‟. The Supreme
Court held as under:

“59. The clause relevant for our purpose is
clause (viii) whereunder “any person who
holds an office by virtue of which he is
authorised or required to perform any public
duty” is to be treated as a public servant
under the 1988 Act. The said clause postulates
that the person must (i) hold an office and (ii)
by virtue of that office (iii) he must be
authorised or required to perform (iv) a public
duty.

xxx

61. We will first examine the question whether
a member of Parliament holds an office. The
word “office” is normally understood to mean
“a position to which certain duties are
attached, especially a place of trust, authority
or service under constituted authority”.

(See: Oxford Shorter English Dictionary, 3rd
Edn., p. 1362.) In McMillan v. Guest Lord
Wright has said:

“The word „office‟ is of indefinite
content. Its various meanings cover four
columns of the New English Dictionary,
but I take as the most relevant for
purposes of this case the following: „A
position or place to which certain duties
are attached, especially one of a more or
less public character.‟ ”

In the same case Lord Atkin gave the following
meaning:

“… an office or employment which was
subsisting, permanent, substantive
position, which had an existence
independent of the person who filled it,
which went on and was filled in
succession by successive holders.”

In Statesman(P)Ltd. v. H.R.Deb and Mahadeo
v. Shantibhai this Court has adopted the
meaning given by Lord Wright when it said:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 42 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

“An office means no more than a
position to which certain duties are
attached.”

62. In Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand
Surana Sikri, J. (as the learned Chief Justice
then was) speaking for the majority, while
construing the words “holds any office of
profit” in Article 19(1)(g), has said that “there
must be an office which exists independently of
the holder of the office”. It was observed that
there is no essential difference between the
definitions given by Lord Wright and Lord
Atkin.

63. In White the Supreme Court of New South
Wales has held that a Member of the State
Legislature holds an office. That view has been
affirmed by the High Court of Australia
in Boston. Isaacs and Rich, JJ. said:

“A Member of Parliament is, therefore,
in the highest sense, a servant of the
State; his duties are those appertaining
to the position he fills, a position of no
transient or temporary existence, a
position forming a recognized place in
the constitutional machinery of
government. Why, then, does he not hold
an „office‟? In R. v. White it was held, as
a matter of course, that he does. That
decision is sound. „Office‟ is defined in
the Oxford Dictionary as including: „4.
A position or place to which certain
duties are attached, especially one of a
more or less public character; a position
of trust, authority, or service under
constituted authority.‟ And „officer‟ is
defined (inter alia) as „2. One who holds
an office, post, or place. (a) One who
holds a public, civil, or ecclesiastical
office; … a person authoritatively
appointed or elected to exercise some
function pertaining to public life.‟
Clearly a Member of Parliament is a
„public officer‟ in a very real sense, for
he has, in the words of Williams, J.

in Faulkner v. Upper Boddington

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 43 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
Overseers „duties to perform which
would constitute in law an office‟.”

77. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it
now needs to be determined if the petitioner held an „office‟ by virtue
of which she was authorised or required to perform a „public duty‟.

78. In the present case, the petitioner was working as the Managing
Director and CEO of the NSE. The NSE is a „Recognised Stock
Exchange‟ under Section 4 read with Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the SCR
Act. We quote Sections 2(f), 2(j) and 4 of the SCR Act as under:

“2. Definitions.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,–

xxx

(f) “recognised stock exchange” means a stock
exchange which is for the time being
recognised by the Central Government under
section 4;

xxx

(j)”stock exchange” means–

(a) any body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not, constituted before
corporatisation and demutualisation under
sections 4A and 4B, or

(b) a body corporate incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) whether
under a scheme of corporatisation and
demutualisation or otherwise,
for the purpose of assisting, regulating or
controlling the business of buying, selling or
dealing in securities.

xxx

4.Grant of recognition to stock exchanges. (1)
If the Central Government is satisfied, after
making such inquiry as may be necessary in
this behalf and after obtaining such further
information, if any, as it may require,–

(a) that the rules and bye-laws of a stock
exchange applying for registration are in

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 44 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
conformity with such conditions as may be
prescribed with a view to ensure fair dealing
and to protect investors;

(b) that the stock exchange is willing to comply
with any other conditions (including
conditions as to the number of members)
which the Central Government, after
consultation with the governing body of the
stock exchange and having regard to the area
served by the stock exchange and its standing
and the nature of the securities dealt with by it,
may impose for the purpose of carrying out the
objects of this Act; and

(c) that it would be in the interest of the trade
and also in the public interest to grant
recognition to the stock exchange;

it may grant recognition to the stock exchange
subject to the conditions imposed upon it as
aforesaid and in such form as may be
prescribed.

(2) The conditions which the Central
Government may prescribe under clause (a) of
sub-section (1) for the grant of recognition to
the stock exchanges may include, among other
matters, conditions relating to,–

(i) the qualifications for membership of stock
exchanges;

(ii) the manner in which contracts shall be
entered into and enforced as between
members;

(iii) the representation of the Central
Government on each of the stock exchange by
such number of persons not exceeding three as
the Central Government may nominate in this
behalf; and

(iv) the maintenance of accounts of members
and their audit by chartered accountants
whenever such audit is required by the Central
Government.

(3) Every grant of recognition to a stock
exchange under this section shall be published
in the Gazette of India and also in the Official
Gazette of the State in which the principal
office as of the stock exchange is situate, and
such recognition shall have effect as from the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 45 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
date of its publication in the Gazette of India.
(4) No application for the grant of recognition
shall be refused except after giving an
opportunity to the stock exchange concerned
to be heard in the matter; and the reasons for
such refusal shall be communicated to the
stock exchange in writing.

(5) No rules of a recognised stock exchange
relating to any of the matters specified in sub-
section (2) of section 3 shall be amended
except with the approval of the Central
Government.”

79. A reading of the above provisions would show that a
Recognised Stock Exchange is not an ordinary business venture, but
performs duties in the public interest, including the protection of
investors. It is established for the purpose of assisting, regulating and
controlling the business of buying, selling, or dealing in securities.
Section 5 of the SCR Act empowers the Central Government to
withdraw recognition granted to a Stock Exchange „in the interest of
the trade or in the public interest‟. Section 6 requires every
Recognised Stock Exchange to furnish to the SEBI such periodical
returns relating to its affairs, as may be prescribed. Section 7 provides
that every Recognised Stock Exchange shall furnish to the Central
Government a copy of its annual report containing such particulars as
may be prescribed. Rules restricting voting rights etc., framed by a
Recognised Stock Exchange under Section 7A, require the prior
approval of the Central Government and publication by the
Government in the Official Gazette. Section 8 empowers the Central
Government to direct a Recognised Stock Exchange to make rules, to
amend the rules already made, or to even make rules, if it is of the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 46 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so. Similarly, Section 9
provides that a previous approval of the SEBI shall be required for
making any bye-laws for the regulation and control of contracts by a
Recognised Stock Exchange. Section 10 provides for the power of the
SEBI to make or amend bye-laws of a Recognised Stock Exchange.
Section 11 empowers the Central Government to supersede the
governing body of a Recognised Stock Exchange. Section 12
empowers the Central Government to suspend the business of a
Recognised Stock Exchange in case of an emergency and, Section
12A of the Act empowers the SEBI to issue directions in the interest
of investors in securities and for the interests of the securities markets.

80. The above provisions are being highlighted only to show that
the Recognised Stock Exchanges, including the NSE in the present
case, perform very vital economic functions in the public interest. It is
not an ordinary commercial venture, as is sought to be projected by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. While it may be true that
the mere requirement of seeking registration or a licence from the
Government by a statutory body, cannot, by itself, be determinative of
whether the licensee performs a public function or a public duty, in the
present case, given the nature of the functions discharged by the
NSE/a Recognised Stock Exchange, there can be no doubt that it does
perform a public duty and a public function in which the public at
large has an interest. In this regard, we would also take note of the
shareholding pattern of the NSE, which is majorly in the hands of
Government companies.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 47 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

81. In fact, the Memorandum of Association of the NSE also
provides its main object as dealing in securities „in public interest‟.
We quote from the same as under:

“A. THE MAIN OBJECTS TO BE PURSUED
BY THE COMPANY ON ITS
INCORPORATION ARE:

1. To facilitate, promote, assist, regulate and
manage in the public interest, dealings in
securities of all kinds (which shall include all
securities defined as such under the Securities
Contracts (Regulations) Act, 1956 and all
other instruments of any kind including money
market instruments) and to provide
specialised, advanced, automated and modern
facilities for trading, clearing andsettlement of
securities with a high standard of integrity and
honour, and to ensure trading in a transparent
fair and open manner with access to investors
from areas in or outside India.

2. To initiate facilitate and undertake all steps
of all such activities in relation to Stock
Exchange, Money Markets, Financial Markets,
Securities Markets, Capital Markets, as are
required for better investor service and
protection, including but not limited to: taking
measures for ensuring greater liquidity (both
in terms of breadth and depth of securities) for
the investor providing easier access to the
Exchange, facilitating inter-market dealings
and generally to facilitate transactions in
securities in a cost effective, expeditious and
efficient manner.

3. To support, develop, promote and maintain
a healthy market in the best interest of the
investor and the general public and the
economy and to introduce high standards of
professionalism among themselves and with
investors and the financial securities, money
and capital markets in general.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 48 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

82. This Court, while dealing with a Writ Petition filed against the
Delhi Stock Exchange (in short, „DSE‟) and the appeal arising
therefrom, in K.C. Sharma (supra), considered whether the DSE is a
„State‟ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
and was amenable to writ jurisdiction. Taking note of the provisions
of the SCR Act, a Division Bench of this Court held it to be so, inter
alia observing that the functions carried out by it closely relate to
governmental functions and that the Government exercises deep-
rooted, pervasive and extensive control over its functioning through
the SEBI. It was further observed that the DSE carries out important
public/State functions, namely, that of controlling and regulating
transactions in securities. The said judgment was approved by the
Supreme Court.

83. Recently, a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in National
Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Central Information Commission &
Ors., 2026:DHC:5170-DB, has held that NSE qualifies as a “public
authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the
Government exercise deep and pervasive control over its functioning.
Further, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Binny
Ltd. (supra), it was held that a stock exchange performs a public
function.

84. From the above discussion, it is evident that NSE performs a
„public duty‟.

85. This now brings us to the question whether the petitioner, as the
CEO and the Managing Director of the NSE, held an office by virtue
of which she performed a „public duty‟.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 49 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

86. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has sought to
draw a distinction between the NSE and the petitioner, by contending
that even if it is assumed that the NSE performs a public duty, the
petitioner, merely by virtue of her position as the Managing Director
and CEO of the NSE, could not be said to perform such duty. He
submits that the petitioner owes a duty only to the Company, that is,
the NSE, and not to the public at large. We are unable to accept the
said submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

87. Clause 158 of the Articles of Association of the NSE spells out
the powers of the Board of Directors of the NSE, and reads as under:

“158. Powers of the Board.

(1) The Board shall have power to organize,
maintain, control, manage, regulate and
facilitate the operations of the Exchange(s)
and of securities transactions by trading
members of the Exchange subject to the
provisions of these Articles and of the SCR Act
and the Rules framed there under and the
SEBI Act and Rules, Regulations there under
or any SEBI directives.

(2) Subject to the provisions of these Articles
and of the SCR Act and the Rules framed there
under and the SEBI Act and Rules there under
or any SEBI Directives, the Board shall have
power and wide authority to make Rules, Bye-

laws and Regulations from time to time for any
or all matters relating to the conduct of the
business of the Exchange, the business and
transactions of trading members between
trading members inter se as well as between
trading members and persons who are not
trading members, and to control, define and
regulate all such transactions and to do such
acts and things which are necessary for the
purposes of the Exchange or of the company.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 50 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing, the Board shall have power to make
rules, bye-laws and regulations, amongst other
purposes, for all or any of the following
matters:-

(a) Conditions for admission to membership of
the Exchange.

(b) Conduct of business of the Exchange.

(c) Conduct of trading members with regard to
the business of the Exchange, including all
matters relating to all transactions in
securities of all kinds and all contracts which
have been made subject to Rules, Bye-Laws,
Regulations or Usage of the Exchange.

(d) Form and conditions of contracts to be
entered into, and the time, mode and manner
of performance of contracts between trading
members inter se or between trading members
and their constituents.

(e) Conditions and levy for admission of
securities for dealings on the Exchange.

(f) Time, place and manner for transacting
business on the Exchange.

(g) Penalties for disobedience or
contravention of the Rules, Bye-Laws and
Regulations or of general discipline of
Exchange, including expulsion or suspension
of the trading members.

(h) Declaration of any trading member as
defaulter or suspension, or resignation or
exclusion from trading membership of the
Exchange and of consequences thereof;

(i) Scale of commission or brokerage which
trading members can charge;

(j) Conditions, levy for admission or
subscription for admission to or continuance
of trading membership of Exchange.

(k) Charge payable by trading members for
transactions in such scrips as, may be laid
down from time to time.

(l) Investigations of the financial conditions,
business conduct and dealings of trading
members

(m) settlements of disputes, complaints, claims
arising between trading members and persons

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 51 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
who are not trading members inter se as well
as between trading members and persons who
are not trading members relating to any
transaction in securities made subject to the
Rules, Byelaws and regulations and usage of
the Exchange including settlement by
arbitration in accordance with the Rules, Bye-

laws and regulations and usage of the
Exchange in force from time to time.

(n) Establishment and functioning of Clearing
Houses(s) or other arrangements for clearing;

(o) Appointment of Committee or Committees
for any purposes of the Exchange
(4) The Board shall be empowered to delegate
to Executive Committee(s) or to any person,
all or any of the powers vested in it, to manage
all or any of the affairs of the Exchange.

(5) Subject to the provisions of these presents
and the SCR Act and the Rules framed
thereunder and the SEBI Act and Rules
thereunder or any SEBI directives, the Board
shall be empowered to vary, amend or repeal
or add to Rules, Byelaws and Regulations,
framed by it.”

88. The Board is, therefore, empowered to manage, regulate and
facilitate the entire operation of the exchange, subject to, inter alia,
the provisions of the SCR Act, the Rules framed thereunder, as also
the SEBI Act. The NSE acts through its officers, including the
petitioner. The petitioner, holding the office of the Managing Director
and CEO, cannot be wholly separated from the functions performed
by the NSE and, therefore, equally performs a function and duty in
which the public at large is invested.

89. In Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (supra), the Supreme Court,
while considering the question as to whether a trustee of a Trust
running a Deemed University could be said to be a public servant

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 52 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
under Section 2(c) of the PC Act, held that the emphasis of the
provision is not on the position held by an individual, rather, it is on
the public duty performed by him/her. Court held that the legislative
intent behind Section 2(c)of the Act was not to provide an exhaustive
list of authorities which are covered by the provision, but to provide a
general definition of the expression “public servant”. Placing reliance
on Ramesh Gelli (supra), it was held that the language of Section 2(b)
of the PC Act indicates that any duty discharged, wherein the State,
the public, or the community at large has an interest, would be called a
public duty. Reliance was also placed by the Court on the judgment in
Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 14 SCC 420, to explain
the ambit of the expression “public servant”, by stressing upon the
relevance of the term “office”, which envisages public duty to be
performed.

90. In any case, whether the petitioner, in the internal management
of the NSE, can be said to be performing a public duty, and how far
she was in-charge of the day-to-day functioning and general policy
decisions of the NSE, including the act/contract complained of in the
chargesheet, are matters of evidence. These cannot, therefore, be
determined at this stage and/or the chargesheet itself be quashed by
determining such mixed questions of facts and law.

91. Similarly, the Sanction Orders issued by the Board of Directors
of the NSE were accompanied with the clarification that the question
whether the petitioner is a public servant and whether the PC Act
applies to the NSE, was not being admitted by the Board of Directors
of the NSE. This would make the Sanction Orders conditional only to

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 53 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04
a limited extent of determination by a competent court of the said
issues. The Sanction Orders also cannot be set aside only on this
ground, as the answer to the same would require consideration by the
learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it.

92. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
petition. The same, along with the pending application, is accordingly
dismissed.

93. We, however, make it clear that any observation made by us
hereinabove, shall not influence the learned Trial Court in deciding the
issues raised before it, on the basis of the evidence led and in
accordance with law.

94. There shall be no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

JULY 9, 2026/rv/sg/Yg

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 3343/2023 Page 54 of 54
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:09.07.2026
16:53:04

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Chitra Ramkrishna vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 July, 2026

Delhi High Court