Court Explores Whether Resolution Professionals Under Insolvency Code Are Public Servants Under Corruption Act.

The court addressed whether a Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code qualifies as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Recognizing the issue's significance, the court issued a notice, setting a returnable date in four weeks. Additionally, the complainant was impleaded as respondent No.2 to ensure comprehensive representation.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Consideration of a Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The main issue before the court was whether a Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code should be considered a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The counsel for the petitioner argued that this question required consideration, highlighting that a similar issue was pending before the court in another case. The Court acknowledged the significance of this matter and decided to issue notice on the issue, with a returnable date set for four weeks.

2. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's attention that the complainant, represented by Mr. Ram Niwas Buri, was a party in the proceedings before the High Court. As a result, the complainant was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the case. This procedural step was taken to ensure all relevant parties were included in the legal proceedings and had the opportunity to present their arguments before the Court.

Overall, the judgment focused on the specific legal question of whether a Resolution Professional falls within the definition of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court's decision to issue notice on this issue and implead the complainant as a respondent demonstrates a commitment to thorough and fair legal proceedings, ensuring all relevant parties are heard before a final decision is reached.

---