FIR Filed Against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Over Electoral Bonds Extortion Allegations

A significant development has unfolded in the political landscape of India with the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The FIR, filed in a Bengaluru court, alleges her involvement in an extortion racket linked to the now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme.

Allegations and Accused Parties

The complaint, filed by Adarsh R Iyer, co-president of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath, accuses Nirmala Sitharaman, along with unnamed Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials and several high-ranking BJP leaders, including BJP President JP Nadda, Karnataka BJP president B Y Vijayendra, and senior leader Nalin Kumar Kateel. The allegations include extortion and criminal conspiracy under the guise of the electoral bonds scheme.

The complaint alleges that corporate entities, such as Sterlite and Vedanta Company, were subjected to raids by the ED, which compelled them to purchase electoral bonds worth over 8,000 crore. These bonds were allegedly cashed by BJP leaders at both national and state levels.

Legal Proceedings and Reactions

The FIR was registered under sections 384 (punishment for extortion) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following a direction from a special court in Bengaluru. However, the Karnataka High Court has since stayed the investigation into the FIR, granting an interim order on a petition filed by Nalin Kumar Kateel.

The BJP has defended Nirmala Sitharaman, labeling the allegations as politically motivated and arguing that the electoral bonds issue is a policy matter rather than a criminal one. In response, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah questioned why Nirmala Sitharaman should not resign if similar standards are applied to other leaders facing FIRs.

Supreme Court Ruling and Broader Implications

The allegations come in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in February 2024, which struck down the 2018 electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional and arbitrary. The court emphasized that the scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution and the right to freedom of speech and expression by depriving voters of essential information necessary to make informed decisions.

The ongoing controversy surrounding the electoral bonds scheme continues to put pressure on the Modi government, particularly as the country approaches general elections. The case highlights the ongoing debate over transparency in political funding and the role of enforcement agencies in such schemes.