Opinion | The misuse of judicial processes for political gamesmanship: Karnataka story

In a rather perplexing turn of events, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore passed an order directing an FIR to be registered for extortion and criminal conspiracy against the Finance Minister of India (Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman); unknown officials of the Enforcement Directorate, the President of the Bhartiya Janata Party (Shri J.P. Nadda); other office bearers of the Bhartiya Janata Party at the national level; Shri Naleen Kumar Kateel and two other accused.

In a nutshell, the complaint accused the above mentioned accused of entering into a criminal conspiracy to extort money from corporate entities by coercing them to purchase electoral bonds. However, on a mere glance at the complaint two aspects stand out. First, it was of no surprise that the complainant chose to file the complaint in the State of Karnataka, a rather friendly regime for the Congress party. Second, the allegations mentioned in the compliant are so vague and ludicrous, that no reasonable man would believe that the contents of the complaint make out any criminal case against the accused. In fact, what was further interesting is the manner in which this matter proceeded before the trial court.

From the outset, the manner in which the accused were listed, is clearly indicative of the fact that the complainant did not intend to plead for justice but rather aimed to score a political brownie point. This in itself, I would argue should merit the dismissal of this complaint. Further, since the complaint was filed on April 15, 2024, the matter was listed eighteen times What appears to be striking is that for these months, both the complainant and his advocates were conspicuously absent. Notably, in September alone, on the 9th, 19th, and 26th, the court records plainly stated, “complainant is absent; no representation.”

Thereafter, on September 27, 2024, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, passed an unreasoned order directing the registration of an FIR. If one were to analyse the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, any lawyer would fairly concede that such a complaint ought to have been dismissed on the mere ground that no officials from the Enforcement Directorate were named and the term “office bearer of the BJP” remains vague and defined. Simply put, there is no place for a fishing and roving enquiry of this nature in the criminal jurisprudence of our country. If we were to further analyse the claim of the complainant that “it appears accused no. 1 pressed the services of accused no. 2 to conduct raids, seizures, and arrests of various corporations, their CEOs, MDs, etc”, it is evident that such a claim is baseless and it lacks any substantive evidence. Rather, the order passed by the judicial officer gives the impression that a conspiracy is being hatched, the other way round, to subjecting the entire BJP leadership to an investigation based solely on vague and baseless accusations. I would argue that such an approach to justice is not only deeply flawed but also concerning as it has received the stamp of a judicially trained mind.

Another aspect that stands out in this situation is that the allegations in the complaint were levelled at two companies: Aurobindo Pharma and Vedanta. Neither of these companies have filed any complaints nor is there an iota of a whisper of any case of extortion. In such a case, the question that arises is on the locus of the complaint. Is he a part of any of these companies or is he merely a political person aiming to shoot a bullet through the shoulders of a friendly regime in the State of Karnataka.

At this juncture, if we are to take a step back and view the issue of electoral bonds vis-à-vis allegations of quid pro quo, we can turn our attention to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Common Cause & Anr vs. Union of India (W.P. (Civil) No. 206/2024), dated 02/08/2024. In this case, the Petitioner filed a plea seeking court-monitored investigation into the electoral bonds scheme based on allegations of quid pro quo between corporate houses and political parties. The Supreme Court of India categorically rejected such an argument as it dismissed the petition by observing that constituting a Special Investigation Team under Article 32 of the Constitution of India would be unnecessary when remedies under ordinary criminal law were available. Moreover, even if the judicial officer in the State of Karnataka sought to have relied on this decision, he failed to apply his mind to conclude as to whether the allegations constituted a cognizable offence or emboldened a fishing and roving inquiry that would please a set of compulsive contrarians.

Therefore, when we view this issue in its entirety, there are few takeaways. First, little is left to be said regarding the contents of the criminal complaint, the manner in which the judicial officer applied his mind and the manner in which he passed such an unreasoned order. Second, this issue further reflects the underlying trend where disgruntled political workers who have been defeated time and again in the arena of the public are turning to courts of law to achieve their ends. Third, this case also calls for reflection by the Supreme Court of India, albeit on a wider scope, as to how judicial restraint is necessary especially at a time when our criminal courts are being clogged with politically flavoured cases.

The author is a Managing Partner at Parinam Law Associates and is the Vice President of Mumbai BJP. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.