Karnataka High Court has stayed investigation against Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others accused of extortion over the controversial electoral bonds scheme.
Published Sep 30, 2024 | 6:48 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 30, 2024 | 7:25 PM
The extortion case is over the controversial electoral bonds scheme
The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, 30 September, issued a stay on the ongoing investigation against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and several others over alleged extortion charges related to the controversial Electoral Bonds Scheme.
Bar and Bench reported that the order was passed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, based on a petition filed by former Karnataka BJP president Nalin Kumar Kateel, one of the accused in the case.
This comes in the backdrop of a recent FIR registered by the city police against Sitharaman, BJP President JP Nadda, Kateel, and unknown officials from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) among others.
The FIR was registered under sections 384 (punishment for extortion) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) on the directions of a special court in the city on 27 September.
The complaint stated that Union Minister Sitharaman and ED officials committed extortion under the pretext of electoral bonds and benefited to the tune of over ₹8,000 crore.
The Special Court for People’s Representatives had pronounced the order while hearing a petition filed by Adarsh Iyer, co-president of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP). He had alleged that BJP officials, including Sitharaman and Nadda, colluded with certain ED officials to extort funds from private companies, benefiting illegally through the now-defunct Electoral Bonds Scheme.
The complaint detailed specific instances where the ED reportedly conducted raids on companies like Vedanta, Sterlite, and Aurobindo Pharma, pressuring their owners to make donations via the Electoral Bonds Scheme.
In his petition, Kateel argued that he and the other accused have been “falsely implicated” with “ulterior political motives.” His lawyer, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, contended that a preliminary review of the complaint does not substantiate any claims of extortion. Raghavan described the allegations as “frivolous, vexatious, and a complete abuse of the process of law.”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a private respondent, asserted that a clear case of extortion exists.
“If they put the fear in the mind of companies that ED will raid and then they are forced to buy electoral bonds and then ED stops action, then this is classic case of extortion,” argued Prashant Bhushan according to LiveLaw.
The court noted the legal framework surrounding extortion, stating that Section 383 mandates the informant must have experienced fear for extortion to be established. Consequently, the Karnataka High Court stayed any further investigation until the next hearing scheduled for 22 October.
(Edited by Ananya Rao)
