On September 30, 2024, the Karnataka High Court issued a stay on the ongoing investigation against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and several others in connection with the electoral bonds scheme. This decision came after BJP member Nalin Kumar Kateel filed a petition challenging the probe, which was initiated based on a private complaint alleging extortion related to the electoral bonds.
The case revolves around accusations made by activist Adarsh R Iyer, who claimed that Sitharaman, along with BJP President JP Nadda and others, colluded with officials from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to extort funds from private companies. The complaint suggested that these individuals had used their positions to pressure companies into purchasing electoral bonds, effectively amassing illegal gains estimated at over ₹8,000 crore.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, who presided over the case, pointed out that for a charge of extortion under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to be established, there must be evidence that the complainant was placed in fear. The court emphasized that the identity of the complainant was crucial in this case, indicating that allowing the investigation to continue without addressing objections could be an abuse of legal processes.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing Kateel, argued that the allegations were baseless and described the complaint as frivolous. He asserted that extortion cannot be claimed merely by linking electoral bond transactions to government actions.
In contrast, Prashant Bhushan, representing the private respondent, maintained that the allegations were valid and that there was a significant basis for the investigation.
This ruling is significant as it halts the probe at a crucial juncture, with implications for political dynamics ahead of upcoming elections in Karnataka
(Business Today).
The case underscores ongoing controversies surrounding electoral bonds, which have faced scrutiny and criticism, particularly after the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that struck down aspects of the scheme.
