Cong demands FM’s resignation over FIR, slams BJP for ‘undermining democracy’ via electoral bonds

New Delhi, Sep 29 (PTI) The Congress hit out at the BJP on Sunday after a case was lodged in Karnataka against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others on a complaint relating to the now-scrapped electoral bonds scheme, demanding her resignation and seeking an objective probe under the supervision of courts.

Addressing a press conference here along with Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh, AICC spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said his party hopes that that through the judicial process, those involved in this “corruption” will be summoned, their statements recorded and on that basis, they will be arrested.

“All the agencies, all the official organs know very well how to proceed because they have been proceeding against a large number of political opponents (of the BJP) in the last 11 years. They do not have to be told how to proceed…. We would certainly demand an objective probe under the courts’ control but more importantly, ultimately supervised either by the Supreme Court or an SIT of the Supreme Court,” Singhvi said.

“The first need of the hour is for the legal process started by this court order to take its course and to be supervised by courts — both the high court and ultimately, the Supreme Court — to prevent any interference or distortion or subordination,” he said.

The opposition party reiterated its demand for a Supreme Court-monitored inquiry through a special investigation team (SIT) into the electoral bonds scheme.

Ramesh alleged that four ways were used to extort money through the “conspiracy of electoral bonds — prepaid bribery, postpaid bribery, post-raid bribery and through shell companies”.

He said the finance minister should immediately resign on political, legal and moral grounds as she is “guilty”.

Ramesh said the FIR was lodged following court orders and the Congress has nothing to do with it.

He said his party has been demanding a Supreme Court-monitored inquiry through an SIT into the electoral bonds scheme and it reiterates that demand.

Singhvi also accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre of “undermining democracy”.

“The finance minister cannot do this on her own. We know who is number one and number two (in the government) and this was done on whose directions,” he said.

“The larger issue is the level-playing field, which is necessary for free and fair polls. Free and fair polls are critical for democracy. This is an attack on our democratic system,” Singhvi said while terming it “EBS — Extortionist BJP Scheme”.

A case was registered against Sitharaman and others on Saturday on the directions of a court in Bengaluru, following a complaint relating to the now-scr

apped electoral bonds scheme.

According to police, the FIR was registered under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 384 (punishment for extortion), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) against Sitharaman, Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials and office-bearers of the BJP at the state and national levels, based on the order of the special court.

Karnataka BJP chief B Y Vijayendra and party leader Nalin Kumar Kateel have also been named in the FIR.

The complaint was submitted to police by Adarsh R Iyer, co-president of the Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP), alleging that the accused “committed extortion under the guise and garb of electoral bonds” and benefitted to the tune of more than Rs 8,000 crore.

The complainant has further alleged that Sitharaman, through the clandestine aid and support of ED officials, facilitated the extortion of thousands of crores of rupees for the benefit of others both at the state and national levels.

“The entire extortion racket under the garb of electoral bonds has been orchestrated hand in glove with officials of the BJP at various levels,” the complaint has said.

The Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme in February, saying it violates the right to information and the freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution.