Karnataka HC Shields Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal in Probe

Karnataka High Court Protects Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal from Police Harassment in Employee Suicide Probe

Court Directs Bengaluru Police to Investigate Fairly Without Coercive Action Against Ola Executives

Case Involves 38-Year-Old Employee’s Death and Allegations of Workplace Harassment

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 22, 2025: The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bengaluru police not to harass Ola Electric CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and other senior executives during the investigation into the alleged suicide of a company employee. The order comes after an FIR was registered against Aggarwal and others for abetment to suicide, following the death of 38-year-old engineer K. Aravind.

The case has drawn national attention, not only because of the involvement of one of India’s most prominent start-up founders, but also due to the sensitive issues of workplace harassment, corporate accountability, and employee well-being.

The Incident

On September 28, 2025, Ola Electric employee K. Aravind, who worked as a homologation engineer, allegedly consumed poison at his residence in Bengaluru. He was rushed to a private hospital but could not survive.

After his death, family members reportedly discovered a 28-page handwritten note, in which Aravind accused senior officials at Ola, including CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and homologation head Subrath Kumar Das, of mental harassment and financial exploitation. The note also mentioned alleged financial irregularities amounting to around ₹17.46 lakh.

Based on a complaint filed by Aravind’s brother, the Subramanyapura Police Station registered a case of abetment to suicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

FIR and Legal Proceedings

The FIR named Bhavish Aggarwal, Subrath Kumar Das, and others. Following this, Ola Electric and its executives approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking protection from coercive police action and requesting that the case be quashed.

On October 14, 2025, Justice Mohammad Nawaz of the Karnataka High Court issued an interim order directing the police not to harass the petitioners “under the guise of investigation.” The court also issued notices to the police and the complainant (Aravind’s brother) to respond.

The High Court clarified that while the investigation must continue, it should be conducted fairly and without unnecessary pressure on the accused.

Supreme Court Principles on Police Conduct

The High Court’s order reflects broader judicial principles that investigations must be fair, impartial, and free from harassment. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that while police have the duty to investigate, they cannot misuse their powers to intimidate or coerce individuals.

In this case, the court balanced the need for a thorough investigation with the rights of the accused, especially given the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for reputational damage.

Impact on Ola Electric

The case has already had a visible impact on Ola Electric. Following reports of the FIR, the company’s shares fell sharply during Muhurat trading on the National Stock Exchange, dropping by more than 4% at one point.

Investors expressed concern over the allegations and the potential fallout for Ola’s leadership. The company, however, has maintained that it is cooperating with authorities and has challenged the FIR in court.

Broader Questions of Workplace Culture

The tragedy has sparked a wider debate about workplace culture in India’s start-up ecosystem. Start-ups are often celebrated for their innovation and rapid growth, but employees have sometimes raised concerns about long working hours, high pressure, and lack of support systems.

Aravind’s death and the allegations in his note have reignited discussions about the need for stronger employee grievance redressal mechanisms and mental health support in corporate India.

Legal Experts’ Views

Legal experts note that abetment to suicide cases are complex and require careful investigation. The presence of a suicide note strengthens the case, but courts will also examine whether the allegations amount to direct instigation or sustained harassment that legally qualifies as abetment.

Some lawyers argue that while the High Court’s order protects the rights of the accused, it does not absolve them of responsibility. The investigation will ultimately determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with prosecution.

Family’s Stand

Aravind’s family has demanded a fair investigation and justice. His brother, who filed the complaint, has alleged that Aravind faced continuous harassment at work and was unfairly targeted. The family has urged authorities not to let the case be influenced by the stature of the accused.

Corporate Accountability in Focus

The case highlights the growing scrutiny of corporate leaders in India. As start-ups mature into large companies, questions of corporate governance, accountability, and employee welfare are becoming more pressing.

Observers note that while India’s start-up ecosystem has produced global success stories, it must also ensure that growth does not come at the cost of employee well-being.

The Road Ahead

The Karnataka High Court has scheduled further hearings in the case. Until then, the police have been instructed to continue their investigation without harassing the accused.

The outcome of the case will be closely watched, not only for its legal implications but also for its impact on corporate practices in India. If proven, the allegations could lead to stricter regulations on workplace conduct and greater emphasis on mental health policies.

Conclusion

The tragic death of Ola Electric employee K. Aravind has brought to light serious concerns about workplace culture and corporate responsibility. The Karnataka High Court’s order protecting CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and others from police harassment underscores the importance of balancing fair investigation with the rights of the accused.

As the case unfolds, it will test the ability of India’s legal system to deliver justice while also prompting deeper reflection on how companies treat their employees. For Ola Electric, the case is not just a legal battle but also a test of its credibility and commitment to employee welfare.