The Karnataka High Court on Monday, April 28, stayed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering case against Amnesty International India and its former director Aakar Patel. The stay order was issued in connection with a case initiated in 2022.
Justice Hemanth Chandangoudar granted interim relief to Amnesty International India Pvt Ltd (AIIPL) and Aakar Patel, and directed the ED not to proceed further under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) until further orders.
The court also issued a notice to the ED, seeking its response to the petitions filed by AIIPL and Aakar Patel seeking quashing of the case.
The ED had filed a prosecution complaint, akin to a chargesheet, in May 2022 against AIIPL, Aakar Patel, former CEO G Ananthapadmanabhan, and others, in connection with alleged violations of foreign funding laws and subsequent money laundering.
The origins of the case lie in a 2019 first information report (FIR) registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Amnesty International India Foundation Trust (AIIFT), accusing it of flouting provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA).
The ED later took over the case, alleging that funds received from Amnesty UK were diverted through commercial routes to circumvent FCRA restrictions.
Amnesty International India halted operations in the country in 2020, following a government freeze on its bank accounts. At the time, the organisation described the move as part of a ‘sustained crackdown’ on civil society and claimed the allegations against it were baseless.
“The continuing crackdown on Amnesty International India over the last two years and the complete freezing of bank accounts is not accidental,” the organisation had said in a 2020 statement.
In its order, the High Court noted that another bench, led by Justice SR Krishna Kumar, had granted similar interim protection in February this year to Ananthapadmanabhan, one of the co-accused. Observing that the charges against Aakar Patel and AIIPL mirrored those in the earlier case, the court extended similar relief.
“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a coordinate bench of this court has granted interim order in favour of accused 3 (Ananthapadmanabhan). The allegations against accused number 1 and 4 are similar,” the court recorded. “Accordingly, interim order as prayed for is granted so far as the petitioners are concerned, till the next date of hearing.”
The petitioners have challenged the proceedings pending before the XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for PMLA cases in Bengaluru.