Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd CEO Bhavish Aggarwal told the Karnataka High Court that a suicide note left by an employee who had alleged workplace harassment and non-payment of dues was “not true”. The court, on October 29, was hearing a petition filed by Bhavish and others seeking to quash the abetment to suicide case registered against them.
However, the court has said that the investigation must continue.
Arvind K had worked as an Homologation, Certification & Regulation Manager at Ola Electric. He died by suicide in September.
A case was filed in October based on a complaint by Arvind’s brother, Ashwin Kannan. The FIR was registered under section 108 (abetment to suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Bhavish, Subrath Kumar Das (Head of Vehicle Homologations and Regulation), and others.
According to Arivind’s family, he had left a 28-page note in which he accused senior Ola officials of harassment and misconduct. He also reportedly described a hostile work environment and pressure from his superiors.
The complaint also alleged that Rs 17.46 lakh was transferred to Aravind’s bank account two days after his death and that Ola’s HR department had not provided any explanation for the payment. Ashwin claimed the transfer was an attempt by the company to “cover up their fault”.
Senior advocate MS Shyamsundar, appearing for the petitioners, said, “Lordships have repeatedly held that death notes are not gospel truths,” Live Law reported. He also reportedly alleged that Ashwin may be “the narrator of this death note”.
Ashwin’s advocate, P Prasanna, replied, “I am extremely sorry … let him not make such submissions. It shows that the company [OLA] is worse than the East India Company. They cannot make such allegations. How can you [petitioners] make an allegation against the brother? Let the police investigate who has written it.”
Further, Shyamsundar said that the police had initially registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR) and that all dues had been remitted to Arvind. He asked why a second case had been registered when the investigation into the UDR was still in progress.
The court responded that the UDR would be closed and that police would now act on Ashwin’s complaint. Shyamsundar insisted that the investigation should continue based on the UDR.
However, the bench asked, “Show any judgement which says if there is a UDR, no other FIR can be registered? What is UDR? Unnatural Death Report. Initially, when police find the cause of death, they file a UDR. Subsequently, if the complainant comes and says it is suicide, then they file under section 108 of the BNS.”
Shyamsundar told the court that the case was garnering criticism against Ola, “I am a publicly listed company and my share prices are dropping. The complainant is giving TV channel interviews. He should not be doing it. There are so many things on social media. Everyone is saying there is a toxic culture in Ola and my employees are leaving.”
Shyamsundar also urged the court to “put the complainant under control”, to which advocate Prasanna Kumar, representing the complainant, retorted, “Is he seeking an injunction against me?”
The next hearing will take place on November 17.
The bench orally said, “Investigation is pending. This court has said that the respondent [police] shall not harass the petitioners under the pretext of investigation. They have to conduct a fair investigation and file an appropriate final report in the four corners of law/provisions available to them … they cannot lean on any side.”