NSE Co-Location Case: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With Delhi HC Order Against Chitra Ramkrishna
The Supreme Court on September 15, 2026, declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order refusing to quash the prosecution against former National Stock Exchange (NSE) Managing Director and CEO Chitra Ramkrishna under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) in the NSE co-location case. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran disposed of her challenge, leaving the issue to be considered by the trial court.
Ramkrishna had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court rejected her challenge to the applicability of the PC Act provisions defining “public duty” and “public servant.” Her central contention was that NSE is a private, non-government company and therefore its senior officers could not be treated as public servants for prosecution under the anti-corruption law.
The Supreme Court did not accept that argument as a basis for interfering at this stage. The Bench held that the question of whether Ramkrishna was actually discharging a “public duty” could be raised and examined during the trial. The Court found no error in the High Court’s decision and directed that the issue be considered on its own merits by the trial court.
The legal dispute centres on Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 2(b) defines “public duty” in terms of a duty in which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest, while Section 2(c)(viii) extends the definition of “public servant” to a person holding an office by virtue of which they are authorised or required to perform such a public duty.
The Delhi High Court had held that the NSE performs functions having a significant public dimension and that its MD and CEO could not be completely separated from the functions of a stock exchange in which the public has an interest. It also held that the precise role played by Ramkrishna in the alleged transactions was a matter requiring evidence at trial rather than a question to be conclusively determined at the stage of a petition seeking quashing of proceedings.
Before the Supreme Court, Ramkrishna’s counsel argued that she did not hold her office under any government or regulatory regime and therefore the PC Act should not apply to her. The argument sought to distinguish the statutory concept of public duty from employment in a private organisation.
The Bench also questioned whether Ramkrishna had pursued an appropriate discharge application before the trial court. The Court observed that even if the trial court ultimately concluded that she was not a public servant, that would not mean that the Special Court automatically lost jurisdiction over the proceedings.
The underlying prosecution relates to the NSE co-location matter, in which the CBI has alleged that between 2010 and 2014 certain brokers obtained preferential access to NSE’s trading servers. According to the prosecution case, the system allegedly enabled some brokers to receive an advantage in accessing market data and trading infrastructure.
The allegations against Ramkrishna extend beyond the alleged co-location arrangements. The CBI has also alleged irregularities involving the appointment and remuneration of former NSE Group Operating Officer Anand Subramanian. The agency has alleged that Ramkrishna facilitated arrangements that contributed to the alleged misconduct. These allegations remain matters for adjudication in the criminal proceedings and have not resulted in a finding of guilt.
The proceedings also have a separate regulatory background. The Securities and Exchange Board of India had earlier examined allegations concerning the manner in which Subramanian’s compensation was fixed and repeatedly revised during Ramkrishna’s tenure. The subsequent criminal case has involved allegations concerning both the internal management of NSE and the broader co-location controversy.
The Supreme Court’s latest order does not determine whether Ramkrishna actually performed a public duty or whether the allegations made by the CBI are proved. Instead, it leaves that question open for determination in the trial proceedings. The immediate effect is that her challenge to the continuation of the PC Act prosecution has not succeeded at the Supreme Court stage.
The ruling is significant because it leaves open the application of the PC Act’s functional definition of “public servant” to senior officials of entities that are not government-owned but perform functions with a substantial public or regulatory dimension. The eventual trial-court determination on Ramkrishna’s specific role and duties will therefore remain important to the further course of the prosecution.
