Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict on Plea to Quash Electoral Bonds Case Against Nirmala Sitharaman
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Karnataka High Court has reserved its decision on a petition challenging the registration of a criminal case against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and other Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders in connection with allegations of extortion linked to the controversial electoral bonds scheme. The case has sparked significant legal and political debate, especially following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Sitharaman, BJP President JP Nadda, and other party officials.
The FIR was filed based on the directions of a Bengaluru magistrate, and it stemmed from a private complaint lodged by activist Aadarsh R Iyer of the NGO Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP), based in Bangalore. The complaint accuses the BJP leaders of collaborating with officials from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to extort money from private firms under the guise of the electoral bonds scheme, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2024.
Iyer’s complaint alleges that these illegal activities resulted in the extraction of over ₹8,000 crores from private companies, such as Vedanta, Sterlite, and Aurobindo Pharma, which were allegedly pressured into donating substantial sums to the BJP through the electoral bonds scheme. The complaint further claims that raids conducted by the ED on these companies were part of the broader effort to coerce donations for the party.
In response to the FIR, BJP leader Nalin Kumar Kateel, along with others named in the case, filed a petition challenging its registration, arguing that the accusations were politically motivated and intended to tarnish their reputations. The petitioners contend that they have been falsely implicated in the case, with ulterior political motives behind the complaint.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the court heard arguments from both sides. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the complainant, asserted that there is no legal bar preventing citizens from initiating criminal proceedings for serious offences, particularly when it involves the misuse of power by political leaders. He argued that the electoral bonds scheme disrupted the level playing field in electoral politics, with ruling party leaders unfairly benefiting from it.
The bench, led by Justice M Nagaprasanna., raised concerns about whether the allegations were strong enough to constitute the offence of extortion. The court appeared to acknowledge that the victims of the alleged extortion had been threatened with legal consequences, such as the initiation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
However, senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing Kateel and others, countered by arguing that the conditions necessary to establish the offence of extortion were not met. He questioned whether the complainant was indeed a victim of the alleged extortion and pointed out that there was no clear evidence showing that the accused had personally benefited from the alleged illegal transactions. Raghavan also emphasized that it was not the petitioners’ case that the money extracted through electoral bonds had been received by them personally or directed to them.
The Karnataka High Court has now reserved its order on whether the FIR and subsequent investigation should proceed. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of the electoral bonds scheme, as well as for the political dynamics surrounding BJP leaders and their handling of electoral finances.
