[NSE Co-location Scam] Delhi High Court seeks CBI's response for updates on the case
![[NSE Co-location Scam] Delhi High Court seeks CBIs response for updates on the case [NSE Co-location Scam] Delhi High Court seeks CBIs response for updates on the case](https://lawbeat.in/sites/default/files/news_images/dhc_6_0.jpg)
It has been alleged that even though the scam involves several thousand crores, no substantial action has been taken.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to file an affidavit mentioning the update in the NSE Co-location scam case.
A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a petition filed by journalist Shantanu Guha Ray who alleged that despite the whistle-blower providing details of the scam nearly three-and-half years back, nothing “substantial” has happened in the case.
The counsel appearing for Ray submitted that the status report has been filed in a sealed cover and earlier also a status report had been filed but no action has been taken. Something should come on record, he stressed.
In January 2015, a whistle-blower wrote to the market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) informing that some brokers were given preferential treatment by the stock exchange as they were allowed to log into the NSE systems with better hardware specifications while engaged in algorithmic trading. This, the whistle-blower alleged, amounted to unfair access and advantage.
The petitioner alleged that even though the scam involves several thousand crores, no substantial action has been taken. Per contra, CBI responded that a case has already been registered in the matter and the investigation is likely to be completed in six to eight months. Further, CBI stated that a status report has already been filed by the CBI in the matter and it now wants to file another status report in a sealed cover.
Earlier, the bench had said that it has some questions for the Investigating Officer (IO) probing the scam and had sought his personal presence.
Case Title: Shantanu Guha Ray v UOI and Anr.