The Karnataka High Court on Monday issued an interim stay on the investigation related to the electoral bond extortion case, providing relief to Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and other BJP leaders.

The court ruled that under IPC Section 384, which deals with extortion, certain key elements must be present, including a direct threat and a complaint from the affected person.

FIR filed

A complaint against Nirmala Sitharaman and others was filed by Adarsh Iyer from the Janaadhikara Sangharsha Sanghatane, alleging that extortion was carried out through electoral bonds. Following this, the Special Court for People's Representatives in Bengaluru ordered an FIR to be filed in the matter. The charge of an “extensive criminal conspiracy of extortion” with reference to the electoral bonds scheme formed the basis of an FIR registered by Bengaluru police.

The complainant alleged that data pertaining to the purchase of electoral bonds, when read with details of raids conducted by the ED and Income Tax (IT) Department, suggest donors may have coughed up donations to the ruling BJP.

In February, the Supreme Court scrapped the electoral bonds scheme, calling it "unconstitutional" and saying it violated citizens' right to information. The Centre introduced the scheme in 2018 and was aimed to replace cash donations to political parties, seeking to improve transparency in political funding.

Supreme Court stays probe against FM, other BJP leaders

"Section 383 mandates any informant should have been put into fear. It is only then extortion can be established. Criminal law can be set into motion by any person. But in cases of 384, it can be set into motion only by the aggrieved ... Who is the complainant here becomes significant ... In this case, permitting further proceedings atleast until the objections have been filed will become an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, further proceedings are stayed until the next date," the court said.

Appearing for Katil, senior Advocate KG Raghavan asserted that even a bare reading of the complaint would not make out allegation of extortion. He termed the complaint frivolous, vexatious and a complete abuse of the process of law.

"The entire allegation is extortion by accused using government agencies, by putting money in electoral bonds. That can never be extortion in eyes of law," he said, urging the court to stay the criminal proceedings, as reported by the Bar & Bench.

Meanwhile, advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for a private respondent countered that there is a "classic case of extortion" made out.

"It's a perfectly valid case. At this stage, no plea can be raised that sanction has to be taken. Sanction has to be taken at the stage cognisance ... Today the plea is only that 'this is not a case of extortion.' I am saying this is the most classic case of extortion. If ever there is a case of extortion, this is it. When you put the fear of arrest and put the fear of raids etc. in the minds of a company and thereby induce them induce them with that fear to give electoral bonds to the party which controls the ED and thereafter the ED stops the action - what else is extortion? This is classic extortion," he said.

Last week, the city police had registered an FIR against Sitharaman, BJP chief JP Nadda, BJP National Executive Member Nalin Kumar Kateel, unknown officials of the Enforcement Directorate and others after the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru took cognisance of a private complaint filed against them.

In his petition challenging this move, Kateel has claimed he and the others have been "falsely implicated" in the case "with an ulterior political motive."

The complaint filed by activist Adarsh R Iyer of non-governmental organisation (NGO) Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, alleged that BJP members, including Sitharaman and Nadda, in connivance with some ED officials, extorted private firms and made illegal gains under the Electoral Bonds Scheme that was struck down by the Supreme Court in February this year.

Iyer had claimed that the accused committed “extortion under the guise and garb of electoral bonds and benefited to the tune of 8000 and more crores of INR.”

The complaint mentioned instances of raids by ED on companies such as Vedanta, Sterlite and Aurobindo Pharma to get their proprietors to donate money through the Electoral Bonds Scheme.

Iyer also told the trial court that he had approached Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Bengaluru South East on February 4 this year with a complaint seeking appropriate action. However, the police did not take any action, prompting him to approach the trial court.