Today, On 30th September, The Karnataka High Court paused the investigation against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others in connection with the Electoral Bonds case. This comes after an FIR filed based on a Bengaluru magistrate’s court order, which acted on a complaint lodged by activist Adarsh R Iyer. The complaint raised concerns over the issuance of electoral bonds and alleged irregularities.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, On Monday, stayed the ongoing investigation against Nirmala Sitharaman and others accused of extortion and related offenses in connection with the electoral bonds scheme.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the stay following a petition by BJP member Nalin Kumar Kateel, who challenged the criminal complaint filed against him in the case.
Quoting the court, Justice Nagaprasanna stated,
“Section 383 mandates that any informant should have been put into fear. It is only then extortion can be established. Criminal law can be initiated by any person. But in cases of Section 384, it can only be initiated by the aggrieved. The identity of the complainant becomes crucial. Permitting further proceedings before objections are filed would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Therefore, further proceedings are stayed until the next date.”
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing Nalin Kumar Kateel, argued before the Karnataka High Court that the complaint did not substantiate allegations of extortion, calling it “frivolous, vexatious, and a complete abuse of the process of law.”
He emphasized that,
“The entire allegation is extortion by the accused using government agencies by putting money in electoral bonds. That can never be considered extortion in the eyes of the law.”
He urged the Court to stay the criminal proceedings.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a private respondent, countered by stating that this case exemplifies extortion. He argued that no interim stay was necessary since no coercive actions had been taken yet.
Bhushan asserted,
“It’s a perfectly valid case. At this stage, no plea can be raised that sanction has to be taken. Sanction is required at the stage of cognizance. Today, the argument is that ‘this is not a case of extortion,’ but I say this is the most classic case of extortion.”
He further explained,
“When you instill fear of arrest and raids in a company’s mind, and induce them to issue electoral bonds to a party that controls the Enforcement Directorate, and subsequently, the ED halts its actions what else is this but extortion? This is classic extortion.”
Last week, Bengaluru police registered an FIR against Nirmala Sitharaman, BJP President JP Nadda, BJP National Executive Member Nalin Kumar Kateel, unnamed officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and others after the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of a private complaint filed against them.
In his petition challenging the FIR, Kateel argued that he and the other accused had been “falsely implicated” with “an ulterior political motive.”
The complaint filed by activist Adarsh R. Iyer, associated with the NGO Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath. It alleged that BJP members, including Sitharaman and Nadda, colluded with ED officials to extort private firms and make illegal gains through the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in February this year.
Iyer claimed that the accused engaged in “extortion under the guise and garb of electoral bonds” and benefited to the tune of over Rs.8,000 crore. The complaint cited specific instances of ED raids on companies such as Vedanta, Sterlite, and Aurobindo Pharma, allegedly pressuring the firms’ owners to donate through the Electoral Bonds Scheme.
Iyer further informed the trial court that he had approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) for Bengaluru South East on February 4, seeking action, but no steps were taken. This inaction led him to file the complaint in court.