The FIR filed against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and BJP officials is centered around allegations of a criminal conspiracy related to extortion and the electoral bonds scheme. Aditya R. Iyer, co-president of the Bengaluru-based NGO Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP), lodged the complaint. He claims that data from electoral bond purchases, combined with details from raids conducted by the ED and Income Tax Department, point to possible extortion of donations by the ruling BJP.
The Bengaluru police registered the FIR at the Thilakanagar police station on the basis of a court order from the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) court. The charges are filed under sections 384 (extortion), 34 (common intention), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Electoral bonds have been a controversial topic in Indian politics, with critics arguing that they promote opacity in political donations. If proven, the charges in this case could further intensify the ongoing debate around transparency and accountability in the political funding system. However, at this stage, the allegations remain under investigation, and the full details are yet to be established.
The special court's decision to order an FIR against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others regarding the electoral bonds scheme relied on two key Supreme Court rulings. One ruling declared the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, while the other dismissed a plea for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe alleged quid pro quo between donors and political parties. The complainant, Aditya R. Iyer, alleged that companies under investigation by agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Income Tax Department were coerced into making donations to the BJP through the scheme.
Iyer supported his complaint with annexures containing data on electoral bonds compiled by the State Bank of India (SBI) under the direction of the Supreme Court. He also cited examples from high-profile investigations, such as the Delhi excise policy case, to suggest that investigating agencies were allegedly used to intimidate companies into donating through raids, arrests, and seizures. Iyer’s analysis, along with external reports, pointed to a pattern of companies being targeted by agencies and then donating to the ruling party via electoral bonds.
The case touches on the wider controversy surrounding the electoral bonds scheme, which critics argue lacks transparency and can be used to mask quid pro quo arrangements between political parties and donors. The allegations, if proven, could have far-reaching implications on the debate around political donations and the use of state institutions for partisan purposes.
The court's decision to allow an investigation into Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others regarding the electoral bonds scheme stems from its acknowledgment of possible criminal wrongdoing. The court emphasised that while the electoral bonds scheme was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, criminal actions linked to the scheme could still be investigated under criminal law. It found merit in complainant Aditya R. Iyer’s plea, determining that the allegations warranted an investigation by a competent agency.
Iyer's complaint focused on extortion involving political donations made through electoral bonds, citing examples such as Vedanta and Aurobindo Pharma. However, he clarified that the scope of his complaint extended beyond these two cases and included 14 other companies, like Future Gaming and Texport Creation. The successful registration of an FIR in this case opens the door for further complaints and investigations into alleged extortion.
Following the court order and FIR registration, the Congress party, which is currently in power in Karnataka, demanded Sitharaman's resignation. Senior Congress leaders Jairam Ramesh and Abhishek Manu Singhvi asserted that Sitharaman was "guilty politically, legally, and morally" in connection to the alleged misuse of investigative agencies for political donations.
The case adds further complexity to the ongoing debate around the electoral bonds scheme, with accusations of coercion and political malpractice taking centre-stage.
Image Source: Multiple Agencies
Ⓒ Copyright 2024. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
