Karnataka High Court declines to quash UAPA case against associates of US-based Christian missionary organisation The Timothy Initiative

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

The High Court of Karnataka passed the order while dismissing petitions filed by Micah Mark, Jonathan S. Rajan, Ajit Verghese Mathai, Varghese Chacko, Bablu Kurmi, and Supreme Joy, all associated with the TTI. | Photo Credit: File photo

Observing that “clandestine funding of extremism is among today’s gravest national security threats”, the High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) refused to interfere with a criminal case against six persons linked to U.S.-based Christian missionary The Timothy Initiative (TTI), under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for illegally using foreign-issued debit cards to withdraw and channel funds in India’s Left wing extremism-affected areas, bypassing regulatory mechanisms.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order on July 1 while dismissing the petitions filed by Micah Mark, Jonathan S. Rajan, Ajit Verghese Mathai, Varghese Chacko, Bablu Kurmi, and Supreme Joy, all associated with the TTI’s India activities.

The petitioners had challenged the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Kothanur police in Bengaluru city on June 11, 2026 against the petitioners and the TTI based on the letter written by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the State Police Chief on May 6, 2026 requesting registration of criminal case against them.

The main contention of the petitioners was that ED lacked statutory authority to share information with Karnataka police for registering the FIR while arguing that Section 66(2) Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2000, permits sharing only for PMLA offences, not offences under UAPA, and the Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 do not empower the ED to share information, secured during its search and seizure operations, with other agencies.

However, the Court rejected these arguments while holding Section 66(2) expressly empowers the ED to share information when the ED forms an opinion that provisions of any other law stand contravened. Accepting the petit