Public duty in stock exchange governance may bring senior officers within anti-corruption law, subject to factual determination.

The Prevention of Corruption Act's definition of public servant is discussed as extending beyond government employment to office-holders authorised or required to perform public duties in which the State, public or community has an interest. Recognised stock exchanges are described under the securities regulatory framework as institutions serving investor protection, fair and transparent trading, and other public-interest market functions. The notes explain that senior exchange officers may fall within this framework where their office is connected to those functions, while questions concerning their precise role, alleged acts, sanction validity and evidentiary issues require determination on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is vague, arbitrary or unconstitutional, or requires to be read down when applied to persons employed in a private company; (ii) Whether the Managing Director and CEO of the National Stock Exchange could, on the pleaded statutory and institutional framework, be treated as holding an office involving performance of public duty within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (iii) Whether the sanction orders and the cognizance order were liable to be quashed on the grounds urged, including the caveat in the sanction orders and the challenge to the petitioner's status.

Issue (i): Whether Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is vague, arbitrary or unconstitutional, or requires to be read down when applied to persons employed in a private company.

Analysis: Section 2(c)(viii) applies where a person holds an office and, by virtue of that office, is authorised or required to perform a public duty. Section 2(b) defines public duty as a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. Reading these provisions in light of the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court held that Parliament intentionally widened the definition of public servant beyond traditional government employment and that a purposive construction is required in anti-corruption legislation. The provision was found to contain intelligible conditions and adequate guidance, and the fact that its application depends on the facts of each case does not make it void for vagueness.

Conclusion: The challenge to Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 failed; the provisions were upheld and were not read down.

Issue (ii): Whether the Managing Director and CEO of the National Stock Exchange could, on the pleaded statutory and institutional framework, be treated as holding an office involving performance of public duty within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 showed that a recognised stock exchange is not an ordinary commercial enterprise but an institution performing vital economic functions in public interest, including protection of investors and regulation of securities trading, under extensive governmental and regulatory supervision. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the National Stock Exchange also reflected objects and powers directed to transparent and fair securities markets in public interest. On that basis, the Court held that the National Stock Exchange performs a public duty. As the exchange necessarily acts through its officers, the office of Managing Director and CEO could not be wholly divorced from those public functions. At the same time, the extent of the petitioner's actual role in the internal management, day-to-day functioning and the acts alleged in the chargesheet involved evidentiary matters not amenable to determination in writ proceedings at this stage.

Conclusion: The Court held that the National Stock Exchange performs public duty and that the petitioner's office as Managing Director and CEO could attract the statutory concept of public duty; the petitioner was not entitled to quashing on the ground that she could never fall within Section 2(c)(viii).

Issue (iii): Whether the sanction orders and the cognizance order were liable to be quashed on the grounds urged, including the caveat in the sanction orders and the challenge to the petitioner's status.

Analysis: The sanction orders recorded that the Board was not conceding, as a matter of admission, that National Stock Exchange personnel were public servants or that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applied to the exchange. The Court held that this caveat merely made the sanction conditional to the limited extent that the legal issue could still be adjudicated by the competent court; it did not by itself invalidate the sanction. The objections regarding the petitioner's exact status, her functions, and the effect of the sanction orders raised mixed questions of fact and law requiring consideration on evidence before the trial court. For the same reason, the cognizance order was not liable to be quashed in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The sanction orders and the cognizance order were not set aside; the issues raised against them were left to be considered by the trial court on evidence and in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the relevant definitions in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was rejected, the National Stock Exchange was treated as performing public duty under the statutory framework governing recognised stock exchanges, and the petitioner's challenge to prosecution at the threshold was declined, while preserving the trial court's freedom to determine factual and legal issues independently on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not void for vagueness because it is anchored in the identifiable requirements of holding an office and performing public duty, and where a recognised stock exchange performs statutory and public-interest market functions, its Managing Director and CEO cannot be excluded in limine from that framework; disputes as to the petitioner's precise role and the effect of sanction are matters for trial when they depend on evidence.

---