Bengaluru Court Orders FIR Against Nirmala Sitharaman: Alleged Forced Collection via Electoral Bonds, Karnataka CM Demands Resignation

A special court in Bengaluru ordered an FIR to be filed against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on September 27. The finance minister is accused of forceful collections through electoral bonds.

Adarsh Ayyar of the Jan Adhikar Sangharsh Parishad (JSP) filed a complaint in Bengaluru, demanding action be taken against Union Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

According to media reports, during the hearing, the court directed Bengaluru’s Tilaknagar police station to file an FIR. The next hearing is scheduled for October 10.

After this news broke, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah demanded the resignation of the Union Finance Minister.

Karnataka BJP Leaders to Protest for Resignation? 

“When will Karnataka BJP leaders protest and march for Sitharaman’s resignation? If an impartial investigation takes place, even PM Modi and Kumaraswamy should resign.”

• Siddaramaiah, Chief Minister of Karnataka

Complaint Filed in April 2024

The Jan Adhikar Sangharsh Parishad filed an application in April in the 42nd ACMM court, naming Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, ED officials, BJP national president JP Nadda, national BJP leaders, Karnataka BJP’s then-president Nalin Kumar Kateel, and BY Vijayendra. The hearing was conducted on Friday.

The complaint states that approximately ₹230 crore was collected from industrialist Anil Agarwal’s firm and ₹49 crore from Aurobindo Pharma through electoral bonds between April 2019 and August 2022.

Supreme Court Declared the Scheme Unconstitutional

On February 15, 2024, the Supreme Court imposed an immediate ban on the electoral bond scheme for political funding. The Supreme Court stated the scheme was unconstitutional, citing that maintaining the confidentiality of the bonds violated the right to information. The court ordered SBI and the Election Commission to release the full data related to electoral bonds.

This data was made public on March 21, revealing that 771 companies in India purchased bonds worth ₹11,484 crore between 2018 and 2023. Trading companies donated the highest amount, ₹2,955 crore, to political parties.

After the data was released, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court in July 2024, seeking an SIT investigation into the transactions between corporate entities and political parties.

Finance Minister’s Statement Before the General Elections: Scheme to Return

Before the general elections, the Finance Minister hinted that the bond scheme would be brought back. In an interview with Hindustan Times, Nirmala Sitharaman mentioned that if they returned to power, they would reintroduce the electoral bond scheme, but first, large-scale consultations would take place.

Introduction of Electoral Bonds

In the 2017 budget, the then-Finance Minister Arun Jaitley introduced the electoral bond scheme. The central government notified the scheme on January 2, 2018. It is a type of promissory note, also referred to as a banknote. Any Indian citizen or company can purchase it.

If you wish to buy one, it is available at selected branches of the State Bank of India. The buyer can donate this bond to a political party of their choice, provided the party is eligible.

What is the Issue with the Scheme?

This scheme was challenged as early as 2017, but the hearing began in 2019. On April 12, 2019, the Supreme Court directed all political parties to submit all information related to electoral bonds to the Election Commission by May 30, 2019, in a sealed cover. However, the court did not halt the scheme.

Later, in December 2019, the petitioner, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), filed an application seeking a stay on the scheme. Citing media reports, the application pointed out how the concerns raised by the Election Commission and Reserve Bank regarding the electoral bond scheme were ignored by the central government.

Why is There a Controversy?

When the scheme was introduced in 2017, Arun Jaitley claimed that it would bring transparency to political party funding and the election process, and help curb black money. On the other hand, critics argue that the identity of the person purchasing the electoral bond is not disclosed, making it a potential medium for using black money in elections.

Some allege that the scheme was introduced with large corporate houses in mind, allowing them to donate unlimited amounts to political parties without revealing their identities.