Public servant status extends to resolution professionals, and sanction requests must be considered on their own merits.

A resolution professional was held to fall within the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court rejected a restrictive ejusdem generis reading of clauses (v), (vi) and (viii), holding that the statutory language covers a person authorised by a court to perform duties connected with the administration of justice. It found that the resolution professional's role in insolvency is report-based, duty-bound, administrative rather than adjudicatory, and performed in the course of administration of justice, involving a public duty. The sanctioning authority was required to consider the sanction request on its own merits and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a resolution professional falls within the definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the sanctioning authority must consider the request for sanction on its own merits.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the scope of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly clauses (v), (vi) and (viii). The Court rejected the restrictive application of ejusdem generis adopted in the contrary view and held that the statutory language extends to a person authorised by a court to perform duties connected with the administration of justice. It further held that a resolution professional performs a report-based and duty-bound role in the insolvency process, that the role is administrative rather than adjudicatory, and that such duties are rendered in the course of administration of justice and involve a public duty. On that basis, the Court concluded that the resolution professional is covered by the statutory definition of "public servant".

Conclusion: A resolution professional is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(v), Section 2(c)(vi) and Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the second respondent was required to consider the sanction file on its own merits in accordance with law.

---