Delhi HC lets CBI trial in NSE co-location case proceed

What the Record Shows

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), by an order dated 11 February 2022, made adjudicated findings of governance failure at the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and imposed monetary penalties on the exchange and three individuals, including its former Managing Director and Chief Executive, Chitra Ramkrishna, and the former Group Operating Officer, Anand Subramanian. Per SEBI's order, the penalties were Rs 3 crore on Ramkrishna and Rs 2 crore each on NSE, former MD Ravi Narain and Subramanian, and SEBI directed the forfeiture of part of the severance paid to Ramkrishna and barred the individuals from association with a market infrastructure institution or SEBI-registered intermediary for a period. These are regulatory findings of governance failure, not a finding of criminal fraud.

Running in parallel, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has pursued a criminal case. Per the CBI chargesheet, an FIR dated 28 May 2018 was followed by a chargesheet on 21 April 2022 and a supplementary chargesheet on 18 August 2022, and the Special Judge took cognizance on 18 July 2023. The CBI arrested Ramkrishna in March 2022 and Subramanian around the same period; both later obtained bail.

The most recent official step, re-checked for this report, is an order of the Delhi High Court dated 9 July 2026, which dismissed Ramkrishna's petition challenging the sanction to prosecute and the cognizance order, holding that as MD and CEO of a recognised stock exchange she held an office involving a public duty. The court observed that NSE is "not an ordinary commercial venture". A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt, and the trial is pending.

How It Worked

The governance findings turn on two linked strands recorded in SEBI's order of 11 February 2022. Per that order, the then MD and CEO shared confidential NSE information, including its organisational structure, financial results, board agendas and human-resources policy, over email with an unidentified correspondent described in the order as a yogi dwelling in the Himalayan ranges. SEBI found that this sharing of institutional information with an outsider breached the exchange's governance obligations.

Per the same order, it was on that correspondence that Anand Subramanian was appointed as Group Operating Officer and adviser to the MD, at a starting package of about Rs 1.68 crore rising to roughly Rs 4.21 crore, against a prior salary of under Rs 15 lakh, on a four-day week and without a formal search or selection process. A forensic report by EY suggested that the "yogi" was Subramanian himself; SEBI recorded the evidence on that specific point as inconclusive, and the article does not treat the identification as established.

The separate CBI matter concerns the exchange's co-location facility. Per the CBI, the case examines whether preferential server access and the early dissemination of trading data conferred an unfair latency advantage on certain brokers. It is important to carry the appellate record alongside the accusation: in the connected co-location and "dark fibre" proceedings, the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), by an order dated 9 August 2023, substantially set aside SEBI's findings against NSE and vacated a disgorgement of Rs 62.58 crore, holding that the charges rested on "surmises and conjunctures". The regulatory findings in that strand were, therefore, largely overturned on appeal, while the CBI's criminal case continues.

Who Lost Money

SEBI did not quantify a direct investor loss in its governance order of 11 February 2022. The harm identified in the record is not a cash sum extracted from identifiable depositors but damage to the integrity of, and public trust in, a systemically important market-infrastructure institution used, directly or indirectly, by every Indian retail equity investor.

That framing matters for how the case is read. Unlike a deposit scheme, where the question is how much of the collected money can be returned, the NSE matter is about whether the controls at the top of a national exchange functioned. The financial figures on the official record are therefore penalties and a severance forfeiture directed at the individuals and the exchange, not restitution to victims.

Where money did move in the co-location strand, the position is contested: SEBI's disgorgement order of Rs 62.58 crore against NSE was vacated by SAT on 9 August 2023, so even the principal monetary finding in that strand does not currently stand. The practical "loss", such as it is, sits in the reputational and governance domain that the regulator and the courts are still adjudicating.

Where It Stands Now

The current position is that the CBI trial is pending. The Delhi High Court's order of 9 July 2026 dismissed Chitra Ramkrishna's challenge to the prosecution's foundations, upholding the sanction orders and the cognizance taken on 18 July 2023, and left the criminal proceedings to continue before the Special Judge. No accused has been convicted in the criminal case.

On the regulatory side, the record is mixed. SEBI's governance order of 11 February 2022 was passed and appeals were filed, while in the connected co-location and dark-fibre matter SAT set aside SEBI's findings against NSE on 9 August 2023 and vacated the disgorgement. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

Readers should treat every characterisation of the underlying conduct as either an adjudicated regulatory finding attributed to SEBI, part of which has been overturned on appeal, or an untested allegation attributed to the CBI, until the criminal trial concludes. No conviction in this matter could be located as of 1 August 2026.

What It Means

The NSE matter is the reference case for a specific kind of risk: not money stolen from a shopfront, but a governance failure at the apex of the market's own plumbing. Its practical value for an ordinary investor is indirect but real. The systems that decide who sees trading data first, and how the leadership of an exchange is appointed and supervised, determine whether the market an investor trades in is fair. That is precisely why a regulator and multiple courts have spent years on it.

The case also illustrates how differently the two tracks move. A SEBI adjudication produces findings and penalties that can be, and here partly were, overturned by the appellate tribunal; a CBI prosecution is a separate criminal process that can continue regardless. For anyone reading enforcement news, the takeaway is to keep the tracks distinct and to check the appellate status of any regulatory finding before treating it as settled. The wider enforcement pattern is collected in the enforcement archive, alongside other market-conduct matters such as the SEBI order in the Zee land-pledge case and deposit-scheme cases like the Popular Group restitution.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The individuals are accused in the CBI case and the trial is pending; SEBI's separate order records regulatory findings, part of which have been set aside on appeal. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What did SEBI actually find and order?

Per SEBI's order dated 11 February 2022, it made governance-failure findings and imposed penalties of Rs 3 crore on Chitra Ramkrishna and Rs 2 crore each on NSE, Ravi Narain and Anand Subramanian, directed forfeiture of part of the severance paid to Ramkrishna, and barred the individuals from association with a market-infrastructure institution or registered intermediary for a period.

Has any of the regulatory action been overturned?

Yes, in part. In the connected co-location and "dark fibre" matter, the Securities Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 9 August 2023, substantially set aside SEBI's findings against NSE and vacated a disgorgement of Rs 62.58 crore, holding the charges rested on "surmises and conjunctures".

Who was the "Himalayan yogi"?

Per SEBI's order, the former MD and CEO corresponded with an unidentified person described as a yogi dwelling in the Himalayan ranges and shared confidential NSE information. A forensic report suggested the correspondent was Anand Subramanian, but SEBI recorded the evidence on that point as inconclusive, so the identity is not established.

What did the Delhi High Court decide in July 2026?

By its order dated 9 July 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed Chitra Ramkrishna's petition challenging the sanction and cognizance orders, holding that as MD and CEO of a recognised stock exchange she held an office involving a public duty. The ruling let the CBI trial proceed; it is not a finding of guilt.

Where can I read the official record?

The Delhi High Court order of 9 July 2026 and the SAT order of 9 August 2023 are on the public record via Indian Kanoon, and SEBI's order of 11 February 2022 is published on SEBI's website.

This report is based on the Delhi High Court order dated 9 July 2026 and the SAT order dated 9 August 2023, together with SEBI's adjudication order of 11 February 2022, reviewed on 1 August 2026.