 |
|
The Karnataka High Court has temporarily halted the investigation into a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and other Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, alleging extortion through electoral bonds. The court's decision, delivered on October 17, 2023, came in response to a petition filed by Naleen Kumar Kateel, a former BJP president in Karnataka who is also named as an accused in the case. The investigation has been stayed until October 22, 2023.
The complaint, filed by Adarsh Iyer, accuses the government agencies, particularly the Enforcement Directorate (ED), of using their authority to intimidate companies into purchasing electoral bonds. Iyer alleges that threats of raids and investigations were employed to coerce these companies into making contributions through electoral bonds. Electoral bonds are a controversial instrument in India, allowing anonymous donations to political parties, raising concerns about transparency and accountability in political financing.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the single-judge bench, reasoned that allowing the investigation to continue before the accused had an opportunity to respond would constitute an abuse of the legal process. The court further emphasized the strict legal definition of extortion under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which necessitates proof of fear instilled in the victim, leading them to surrender property to the accused. In this case, the court found that the complainant, Iyer, did not claim to have been subjected to fear or coercion. Therefore, the court concluded that Iyer's attempt to invoke Section 383 of the IPC was inappropriate.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing Kateel, argued that contributing to political parties through electoral bonds could never be considered extortion under the law. Conversely, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Iyer, argued that if the accused intimidated companies with the threat of ED investigations, forcing them to purchase electoral bonds, then this would constitute a classic case of extortion.
The court's decision to stay the investigation has raised further questions about the legality and transparency surrounding electoral bonds. Critics argue that the anonymity afforded by these bonds makes it easier for individuals and corporations to engage in illicit political financing. The case is expected to continue, with the court scheduled to revisit the matter on October 22, 2023.