Fear Factor Central:Extortion Allegations Against Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Hold as Karnataka HC Sets Hearing for October 22

Bengaluru, Sep 30: In a significant legal development, the Karnataka High Court has temporarily halted the investigation into extortion allegations against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and several other Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders until October 22. The court’s decision emphasizes the necessity of establishing a “fear factor” to validate the claims made by the complainant, activist Adarsh Iyer.

During the hearing, Justice M. Nagaprasanna outlined that for extortion to be proven, the complainant must demonstrate that they were placed in a position of fear. This principle is central to the allegations brought forth by Iyer, who accused Sitharaman, BJP President JP Nadda, and other party officials of colluding with Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials to exert pressure on private companies for financial contributions through the controversial Electoral Bonds Scheme.

Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out the nuances of criminal law in extortion cases, noting, “While anyone can initiate criminal proceedings, extortion cases must be initiated by the individual who has been wronged.” He further explained that Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates that the informant must have experienced fear for the charges of extortion to hold weight. The judge underscored that the identity and circumstances of the complainant are crucial in these matters.

The complaint alleges that BJP leaders utilized ED raids as leverage to extort money from prominent companies such as Vedanta, Sterlite, and Aurobindo Pharma, coercing them into donating to the ruling party through electoral bonds. In light of these serious accusations, BJP leader Nalin Kumar Kateel, one of the respondents, challenged the validity of the claims, characterizing them as unfounded and politically motivated. His legal representative, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, dismissed the complaint as “frivolous” and labeled it an “abuse of the process of law.”

Contrastingly, Prashant Bhushan, representing Iyer, defended the legitimacy of the case, arguing that the defense’s concerns regarding the necessity of prior sanction were premature and should only be considered once the court officially acknowledged the case. Bhushan asserted that the arguments presented by the defense were merely attempts to deflect from what he described as “the most classic case of extortion.”

He elaborated on the extortion allegations, arguing that instilling fear through the threat of arrest and raids constitutes classic extortion. Bhushan contended that compelling companies to contribute electoral bonds to the party in control of the ED while simultaneously halting investigations against them—amounted to a blatant act of coercion.

Justice Nagaprasanna acknowledged the validity of these concerns and stated that proceeding with the investigation without addressing the raised objections would lead to complications. Consequently, the court ordered a stay on further proceedings until the objections were resolved, with the next hearing scheduled for October 22.

This legal battle highlights the intricate intersection of politics, law, and ethical governance in India, as allegations of misuse of power by high-ranking officials come under scrutiny.