The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday refused to quash a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against six persons allegedly linked to US-based Christian missionary organisation, The Timothy Initiative (TTI), accused of illegally routing foreign funds into India and using them to support left-wing extremism [Micah Mark & Ors. v State of Karnataka & Anr.].

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the allegations, which included suspected terror financing and threats to national security, warranted a full-fledged investigation.

"This is not a case warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to nip the crime in the bud. The case concerns national security. National security is the invisible architecture upon which the sovereignty, stability and constitutional order of a nation rest. One of the gravest threats to National security in the present times is, the clandestine funding of extremism. Funding, therefore, becomes the oxygen that enables extremist movements to survive and proliferate," observed the Court.

The Court dismissed two petitions challenging the FIR registered by the Karnataka Police on the basis of information shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The six were booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences relating to criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and destruction of evidence, along with Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAPA, which deal with unlawful activities, raising funds for terrorist acts and conspiracy to commit or facilitate terrorist acts.

The case stemmed from an ED investigation that began after one of the accused, Micah Mark, was intercepted at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport while allegedly carrying 24 international debit cards.

During searches conducted under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), the agency claimed to have uncovered a wider network through which foreign funds were allegedly withdrawn across India using debit cards issued by a US bank.

According to the ED, nearly ₹92.55 crore was withdrawn between November 2025 and April 2026 using such cards, while withdrawals of around ₹40 crore were also traced to States including Chhattisgarh and Assam over an earlier period. The agency alleged that the cards were issued in the name of "Santosh Kumar" to conceal the identities of their actual users and circumvent Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements.

The ED further alleged that the funds were channelled through TTI's Indian network and withdrawn in left-wing extremism-affected areas, prompting it to share information with the Karnataka Police.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the ED had exceeded its authority by requesting registration of an FIR under the UAPA. They contending that its powers were confined to proceedings under FEMA and the PMLA.

The petitioners further submitted that there was no prima facie material to invoke anti-terror provisions and alleged that the UAPA offences had been added without basis.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that Section 66(2) of the PMLA expressly authorises the ED to share information about violations of other laws with the concerned agency.

It noted that the ED's communication set out detailed allegations regarding the flow of foreign funds, the manner in which they were allegedly withdrawn through foreign debit cards, and their alleged use in left-wing extremism-affected areas.

The Court also stressed that at the stage of considering a plea to quash an FIR, it was not required to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but only to examine whether there was sufficient prima facie material to permit an investigation.

"The danger of extremist financing lies not merely in the money transferred, but in the consequences it unleashes. Left unchecked, such funding can transform ideological extremism into organized violence, threatening National unity and public safety. The preservation of National security, therefore, demands robust vigilance against financial channels that sustain extremism," the Court further observed.

Hence, it concluded that the allegations warranted a thorough probe.

The State was represented by State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha.

Special Public Prosecutor Madhu N Rao appeared for ED.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates MS Shyam Sundar and S Basavaraj and advocates Timothy Charles and Mahesh Y L.

[Read Order]